Paul’s newsletters and the changing tactics of libertarianism

Libertarian Steve Horwitz explains the context of those Ron Paul newsletters with a fascinating survey of the history and the varying strategies of that movement:

The attempt to court the right through appeals to the most unsavory sorts of arguments was a conscious part of the “paleolibertarian” strategy that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard cooked up in the late 1980s. . . .

Classical liberalism started as a movement of the left, with folks like J.S. Mill being our standard bearers against the forces of reaction and conservatism in England, especially over issues of race. We were the “progressives” of that era, viewing the market as a force for progress for all, especially the least well-off, and as a great equalizer. It was Mill who argued that it was a good thing that markets would lead to racial equality in opposition to people like Carlyle and Ruskin who rejected markets because they wanted to maintain racial hierarchy. The liberal revolution was a revolution against privilege and the old order. It was the radical progressivism of its day.

Unfortunately, classical liberalism never figured out how to respond to the development of socialism, and especially the state socialism of the Soviets and others in the early 20th century, in a way that maintained our progressive credentials. By default, we moved from the “left” to the “right,” thrown in with the conservative opponents of the growing socialist wave. From the Old Right of the 1940s through the Reagan era, libertarianism’s opposition to socialism, especially interferences in the market, led us to ally with the forces of reaction. But even with the demise of really-existing socialism, we have been unable to completely break free of that connection to the right, though things are better than they used to be.

Even as this happened, though, the liberalism of libertarianism did not die. Within that libertarianism on the right was a strong strain of leftism, particularly from the late 1960s into the early or mid 1980s, both in the broader movement and in the Libertarian Party in particular. When I came into the movement in 1980, I can vividly recall meeting members of the Michigan LP and being surprised at how, for lack of a better word, hippie they were, right down to smoking dope during the breaks at the state convention.

By the mid-80s though, conservatism was hot, thanks to Reagan, and the internal strife of the movement pitted Murray Rothbard against the Koch Brothers, with the accusation by Rothbard that the liberal libertarians were undermining the movement’s ability to appeal to a broader audience thanks to their supposed libertinism. Murray wanted the hippies out. The irony here was that it was the Koch controlled parts that were (largely) the source of the left-deviation that pissed Rothbard off. . . .

This led to the paleolibertarian strategy by the end of the decade after Rothbard broke with the Kochs and helped Lew Rockwell found the Mises Institute (originally located on Capitol Hill – right smack inside the hated beltway, it’s worth noting). The paleo strategy, as laid out here [go to the site for the link] by Rockwell, was clearly designed to create a libertarian-conservative fusion exactly along the lines Jacob lays out in his post. It was about appealing to the worst instincts of working/middle class conservative whites by creating the only anti-left fusion possible with the demise of socialism: one built on cultural issues. With everyone broadly agreeing that the market had won, how could you hold together a coalition that opposed the left? Oppose them on the culture. If you read Rockwell’s manifesto through those eyes, you can see the “logic” of the strategy. And it doesn’t take a PhD in Rhetoric to see how that strategy would lead to the racism and other ugliness of newsletters at the center of this week’s debates.

The paleo strategy was a horrific mistake, both strategically and theoretically, though it apparently made some folks (such as Rockwell and Paul) pretty rich selling newsletters predicting the collapse of Western civilization at the hands of the blacks, gays, and multiculturalists. The explicit strategy was abandoned by around the turn of the century, but not after a lot of bad stuff had been written in all kinds of places. . . .

Through it all though, Ron Paul was a constant. He kept plugging away, first at the center of the paleo strategy as evidenced by the newsletters. To be clear, I am quite certain he did not write them. There is little doubt that they were written by Rockwell and Rothbard. . . .

Even after the paleo strategy was abandoned, Ron was still there walking the line between “mainstream” libertarianism and the winking appeal to the hard right courted by the paleo strategy. Paul’s continued contact with the fringe groups of Truthers, racists, and the paranoid right are well documented. . . .

Those of us who watched all of this happen over two decades knew it would come back to haunt us and so it has, unfortunately just as Ron Paul and libertarianism are on the cusp of something really amazing. And that only goes to show what a mistake the paleo strategy was. . . .

So why deal with this now, when libertarianism is so hot? Because those newsletters are not what libertarianism is and the sooner and louder we make that clear, the better. There are too many young people who don’t understand all of this and who we need to help see the alternative liberal vision of libertarianism – and to understand that “liberal libertarianism” is radical, principled, and humane and not “beltway selling out.” To do that, we need to confront the past and explicitly reject it. That doesn’t necessarily mean rejecting Ron Paul in electoral politics, but it does mean that we cannot pretend the past doesn’t exist and it means that Paul and the others involved need to do the right thing and take explicit responsibility for what they said two decades ago. That has not happened yet. Then we need a complete and utter rejection of the paleo world-view and we need to create a movement that will simply not be attractive to racists, homophobes, anti-Semites etc., by emphasizing, as we have done at this blog, libertarianism’s liberal roots.

This explains a lot, but my questions multiply. So is Ron Paul just an ideological stalking horse? Are libertarians deliberately disguising themselves in a bid for popularity and political power? Is libertarianism actually liberal in its anti-traditionalism, radical individualism, and rejection of moral limits?

I had heard Ron Paul described as a conservative Republican with libertarian leanings. I had no idea he was such a movement figure, his prominence probably coming from his being the libertarian who has risen to the highest public office. I wouldn’t characterize the Paul supporters who participate in this blog–Cincinnatus, tODD, SKPeterson, Father Hogg [an orthodox priest]–as libertarians. (I’m sure they will correct me if I’m wrong.) So it must be possible to support Paul even if you aren’t, as he is, a card carrying libertarian. I haven’t got my mind around that, though.

To be clear: I discuss certain political views on blogs not as a priest–there are many priests of many varied points of view–but as a philosopher and a citizen of the United States, grateful for the opportunity we have in this nation to state our views.

Having said that, I’m willing to defend a political philosophy which says: 1. The essential purpose of government is to prevent people from causing physical harm to other people–i.e. to enforce negative rights (“I have the right not to be harmed”) and not positive rights (“I have the right to a free education”). 2. The essential purpose of the military is to defend us against foreign invasion, not to solve the world’s conflicts. 3. Governments may choose to take on greater responsibilities, with the consent of the governed. When that happens, the best level of government to accomplish its goals is the most local level possible. This is because more local levels can respond faster, more accurately and with greater accountability to local issues. Hungry people and children needing education aren’t generalities; they are concrete realities. 4. Government is not the only institution, and when it’s functioning properly it’s not even the most important institution. Feeding the hungry and educating children can also be done by other societal groups–like churches. 5. Provided that personal behaviors do not put others into immanent physical danger, the government should stay out of controlling them–insisting only that as complete a disclosure of risks as possible be stated, and that the public not be required to bail people out of bad decisions. For example, I am against forcing people to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets. As long as they indemnify themselves by disclosing their desire at insurance-buying time, and as long as a company (or they themselves) are willing to cover the potential costs, it’s their business.

These are the basic lineaments of the political views I hold, and Ron Paul best seems to line up with them.

Voting for a Democrat, it seems to me, is like marrying a man who says at the outset, “I plan to practice open marriage” and does so. Voting for most Republicans is like marrying a man who says at the outset, “I believe in traditional family values” and then serially cheats.

Fr. Gregory Hogg

To be clear: I discuss certain political views on blogs not as a priest–there are many priests of many varied points of view–but as a philosopher and a citizen of the United States, grateful for the opportunity we have in this nation to state our views.

Having said that, I’m willing to defend a political philosophy which says: 1. The essential purpose of government is to prevent people from causing physical harm to other people–i.e. to enforce negative rights (“I have the right not to be harmed”) and not positive rights (“I have the right to a free education”). 2. The essential purpose of the military is to defend us against foreign invasion, not to solve the world’s conflicts. 3. Governments may choose to take on greater responsibilities, with the consent of the governed. When that happens, the best level of government to accomplish its goals is the most local level possible. This is because more local levels can respond faster, more accurately and with greater accountability to local issues. Hungry people and children needing education aren’t generalities; they are concrete realities. 4. Government is not the only institution, and when it’s functioning properly it’s not even the most important institution. Feeding the hungry and educating children can also be done by other societal groups–like churches. 5. Provided that personal behaviors do not put others into immanent physical danger, the government should stay out of controlling them–insisting only that as complete a disclosure of risks as possible be stated, and that the public not be required to bail people out of bad decisions. For example, I am against forcing people to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets. As long as they indemnify themselves by disclosing their desire at insurance-buying time, and as long as a company (or they themselves) are willing to cover the potential costs, it’s their business.

These are the basic lineaments of the political views I hold, and Ron Paul best seems to line up with them.

Voting for a Democrat, it seems to me, is like marrying a man who says at the outset, “I plan to practice open marriage” and does so. Voting for most Republicans is like marrying a man who says at the outset, “I believe in traditional family values” and then serially cheats.

http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

Ron Paul lives in that strange world where the far left goes all the way round to meet up with the far right.

It’s really an odd phenomenon.

http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

Ron Paul lives in that strange world where the far left goes all the way round to meet up with the far right.

It’s really an odd phenomenon.

helen

Feeding the hungry and educating children can also be done by other societal groups–like churches.

Right, except it’s a long time since they have done so. When you get down, the church says, “Be warmed and fed.” but even your relatives (who were glad to take from you before disaster struck) cross to the other side of the road. Been there!

Rick Perry made a great show of refusing money from the federal government… but when central Texas was burning (1600 homes lost in a few days) Rick Perry got off the campaign trail just long enough to say he wanted FEMA there, like, yesterday!

Voting for a Democrat, it seems to me, is like marrying a man who says at the outset, “I plan to practice open marriage” and does so. Voting for most Republicans is like marrying a man who says at the outset, “I believe in traditional family values” and then serially cheats. –Charles Hogg

So, either way, one might better stay single!

helen

Feeding the hungry and educating children can also be done by other societal groups–like churches.

Right, except it’s a long time since they have done so. When you get down, the church says, “Be warmed and fed.” but even your relatives (who were glad to take from you before disaster struck) cross to the other side of the road. Been there!

Rick Perry made a great show of refusing money from the federal government… but when central Texas was burning (1600 homes lost in a few days) Rick Perry got off the campaign trail just long enough to say he wanted FEMA there, like, yesterday!

Voting for a Democrat, it seems to me, is like marrying a man who says at the outset, “I plan to practice open marriage” and does so. Voting for most Republicans is like marrying a man who says at the outset, “I believe in traditional family values” and then serially cheats. –Charles Hogg

So, either way, one might better stay single!

trotk

Steve Martin responds to Ron Paul as Grace does to Martin Luther. No logical argument, but plenty of insults.

Father Hogg has summarized nicely many of the reasons why Paul is attractive to me.

trotk

Steve Martin responds to Ron Paul as Grace does to Martin Luther. No logical argument, but plenty of insults.

Father Hogg has summarized nicely many of the reasons why Paul is attractive to me.

I’m not an expert in libertarian literature; my most extended read was Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia.” But at a time when we’re $14 trillion in debt, it may be wise for government to focus on its core purpose. And maybe, just maybe, those guys at the other end of the world have more of a stake in how their government performs than we do. (If M.A.D. worked against the Soviet Union, surely it’ll work against Iran.)

In the meanwhile, our little parish (50 or 60 a week) has been able to help those in need within our group, and to partner with social welfare agencies to help those outside it. It can be done. One must simply act.

Government must rely on a kind of fiction, I think–that we are individuals. Thus, we speak of “individual rights.” But life is bigger than government, and we are not individuals; we are persons. As *persons*, we are born into a social community, and we naturally tend to join or form other communities, besides governments. Churches, lodges, benevolent associations like Rotary, book and literary clubs are all natural human expressions–as well as the primal community, the family. In Grand Rapids we’re cultivating a Russian school.

Nothing, not even government, can guarantee that other folks (or we ourselves) won’t act like jerks. By removing barriers, government can allow for the natural formation of such groups; and even if one of those (say, a family) fails us, perhaps another (say, the church) can step in.

But the world is broken, and “the poor you will have with you always”–not so that we may lobby the government to feed them, but so that we might feed them ourselves.

WRT my quasi-cynical voting/marriage illustration, your response would work except for the fact that: 1) Christians have a duty to engage in civil society, when it is established on the foundation of citizen involvement. 2) Democrats and Republicans aren’t the only choices we have.

And thanks for referring to me as “Charles”–given what I said above, that’s probably preferable in these philosophical discussions.

I’m not an expert in libertarian literature; my most extended read was Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia.” But at a time when we’re $14 trillion in debt, it may be wise for government to focus on its core purpose. And maybe, just maybe, those guys at the other end of the world have more of a stake in how their government performs than we do. (If M.A.D. worked against the Soviet Union, surely it’ll work against Iran.)

In the meanwhile, our little parish (50 or 60 a week) has been able to help those in need within our group, and to partner with social welfare agencies to help those outside it. It can be done. One must simply act.

Government must rely on a kind of fiction, I think–that we are individuals. Thus, we speak of “individual rights.” But life is bigger than government, and we are not individuals; we are persons. As *persons*, we are born into a social community, and we naturally tend to join or form other communities, besides governments. Churches, lodges, benevolent associations like Rotary, book and literary clubs are all natural human expressions–as well as the primal community, the family. In Grand Rapids we’re cultivating a Russian school.

Nothing, not even government, can guarantee that other folks (or we ourselves) won’t act like jerks. By removing barriers, government can allow for the natural formation of such groups; and even if one of those (say, a family) fails us, perhaps another (say, the church) can step in.

But the world is broken, and “the poor you will have with you always”–not so that we may lobby the government to feed them, but so that we might feed them ourselves.

WRT my quasi-cynical voting/marriage illustration, your response would work except for the fact that: 1) Christians have a duty to engage in civil society, when it is established on the foundation of citizen involvement. 2) Democrats and Republicans aren’t the only choices we have.

And thanks for referring to me as “Charles”–given what I said above, that’s probably preferable in these philosophical discussions.

Best,

Charles Hogg

Abby

‘Voting for most Republicans is like marrying a man who says at the outset, “I believe in traditional family values” and then serially cheats.”

That is a very broad brush to paint most Republicans with. There are good Republicans and good Democrats. I vote Republican because I like the platform better. If you want to look at a person’s sins there is NO ONE to vote for. Personally, I would rather live under King David as a ruler — who was a hawk for God — but who was also personally sexually immoral. God confronted David about that sin but didn’t take the kingdom away from him because of it — nor the fact that Jesus will come to establish that kingdom forever. (2 Sam. 7: 1-11, 16)

As a Christian, I can adopt things from both parties for the good of people. If we want to paint with broad brushes, don’t most militias claim to be Libertarians? I’ll stick with one or the other mainline. Or be an Independent, which I think is what I really am.

Abby

‘Voting for most Republicans is like marrying a man who says at the outset, “I believe in traditional family values” and then serially cheats.”

That is a very broad brush to paint most Republicans with. There are good Republicans and good Democrats. I vote Republican because I like the platform better. If you want to look at a person’s sins there is NO ONE to vote for. Personally, I would rather live under King David as a ruler — who was a hawk for God — but who was also personally sexually immoral. God confronted David about that sin but didn’t take the kingdom away from him because of it — nor the fact that Jesus will come to establish that kingdom forever. (2 Sam. 7: 1-11, 16)

As a Christian, I can adopt things from both parties for the good of people. If we want to paint with broad brushes, don’t most militias claim to be Libertarians? I’ll stick with one or the other mainline. Or be an Independent, which I think is what I really am.

DonS

Fr. Hogg @ 1: Well said. The principles you have laid out are succinct, clear, and largely in line with my own philosophies. I have thus far determined that voting for Republicans gives me a chance of getting a good marriage, whereas the open marriage guy is definitely a lost cause.

My own view of your second principle is that, in this modern era of internationalism, we have many genuine interests overseas, short of actual physical invasion of the homeland (which in the age of airpower, intercontinental missiles, nuclear and biological weapons, and sophisticated terrorism, is a bit quaint, which must be defended. The risk of not doing so is to risk destruction of our way of life, and the potential loss of life of thousands or millions of our fellow citizens. BUT, I am not in support of our current strategy of interventionism, even when direct U.S. interests are not at stake, and I am definitely in favor of reducing our international footprint, particularly in Europe, and where the purpose is to subsidize the defense of first world Europeans who should be defending themselves.

DonS

Fr. Hogg @ 1: Well said. The principles you have laid out are succinct, clear, and largely in line with my own philosophies. I have thus far determined that voting for Republicans gives me a chance of getting a good marriage, whereas the open marriage guy is definitely a lost cause.

My own view of your second principle is that, in this modern era of internationalism, we have many genuine interests overseas, short of actual physical invasion of the homeland (which in the age of airpower, intercontinental missiles, nuclear and biological weapons, and sophisticated terrorism, is a bit quaint, which must be defended. The risk of not doing so is to risk destruction of our way of life, and the potential loss of life of thousands or millions of our fellow citizens. BUT, I am not in support of our current strategy of interventionism, even when direct U.S. interests are not at stake, and I am definitely in favor of reducing our international footprint, particularly in Europe, and where the purpose is to subsidize the defense of first world Europeans who should be defending themselves.

George

Generally, Libertarianism is an expression of historic progressivism, in the sense that the culture and virtue is unessential. Rather it is reason that must reign. This is why the espoused ethic if Libertarianism is not the sense of Romantic virtue often upheld in various “conservative” branches, but rather the mechanistic Utilitarianism represented by the “Harm Theory,” and paraded about by Liberals and Libertarians alike.

Both Liberals and Libertarians are the same people arriving at different conclusions using the same method. They ask “how can we arrive at a safe, fair, and harmonious society through the use of our reason?”

This of course is a gross simplification, but I do believe history pans out its veracity.

George

Generally, Libertarianism is an expression of historic progressivism, in the sense that the culture and virtue is unessential. Rather it is reason that must reign. This is why the espoused ethic if Libertarianism is not the sense of Romantic virtue often upheld in various “conservative” branches, but rather the mechanistic Utilitarianism represented by the “Harm Theory,” and paraded about by Liberals and Libertarians alike.

Both Liberals and Libertarians are the same people arriving at different conclusions using the same method. They ask “how can we arrive at a safe, fair, and harmonious society through the use of our reason?”

This of course is a gross simplification, but I do believe history pans out its veracity.

SKPeterson

Hmm. Am I a libertarian or a conservative? I’d probably say both, and that both come from much the same source. I also find myself very much in agreement with the points set forth by Fr. Hogg (is Charles your brother?)

For many on this site, the question might be framed as “How can you be a libertarian and hold to the Lutheran view on the Two Kingdoms? Doesn’t that theological insight provide the imprimatur for the state?”

To which I must answer, to question 1, “Quite easily,” and to question 2, “Yes and no.” Let me explain. I come to my libertarianism (really what would best be described as classical liberalism) not from some pie-in-the-sky world where everyone is good and everything would be blue skies and bunny rabbits if we had no government. Rather, it is centered on the opposite premise – men are basically evil as evidenced by the doctrine of Original Sin. Yet, our evil is curtailed by the Law (in all its uses), both for our good, but for that of our neighbor. Our evil and sinful impulses are constrained by social and cultural institutions built up over time that minimize the commission of evil acts, provide recompense to the injured and some form of punishment. However, most of those institutions exist outside the government. Now, each one of these institutions is comprised of sinful men, but most of these associations and groups are voluntary in organizational structure such that the ability of any one or two sinful persons to do actual, lasting harm to their neighbor is minimized. But, with government you have sinful men and women who are given power and nothing feeds the beast of sin like power. In fact, it is the desire for power that spills over into all of the basic crimes condemned by God and morality – especially murder and theft. So, I’m leery of an institution such as government which is full of sinful men who have power coupled with the protection of the law (granted to themselves by themselves) and who have weapons. I prefer to keep this institution small and local, subject to greater checks and balances by the other social and cultural institutions of the 2nd kingdom. Thus, there is an imprimatur for the state, however there is not a prescription for what the size or the extent or the powers allowed of any said state. Perhaps the most effective means of government and order is to be found at the local level, maybe at the provincial/state level, but my guess is only very rarely at a “national” or federal level. My libertarianism, such as it is, flows from that understanding.

Also, as a caution to those who may cite Luther’s arguments for the benefits of good government, the blessings that are bestowed upon society that result, and the necessity of government to keep the peace, remember, who and what was the form of government that he was addressing? I can almost guarantee that if I suggested that we curtail our government to be in line with that of Electoral Saxony or the city of Marburg in 1550, I’d be declared an unhinged, hyper-libertarian. Using Luther to support the welfare state of 2012, or even 1932, is an anachronistic error.

SKPeterson

Hmm. Am I a libertarian or a conservative? I’d probably say both, and that both come from much the same source. I also find myself very much in agreement with the points set forth by Fr. Hogg (is Charles your brother?)

For many on this site, the question might be framed as “How can you be a libertarian and hold to the Lutheran view on the Two Kingdoms? Doesn’t that theological insight provide the imprimatur for the state?”

To which I must answer, to question 1, “Quite easily,” and to question 2, “Yes and no.” Let me explain. I come to my libertarianism (really what would best be described as classical liberalism) not from some pie-in-the-sky world where everyone is good and everything would be blue skies and bunny rabbits if we had no government. Rather, it is centered on the opposite premise – men are basically evil as evidenced by the doctrine of Original Sin. Yet, our evil is curtailed by the Law (in all its uses), both for our good, but for that of our neighbor. Our evil and sinful impulses are constrained by social and cultural institutions built up over time that minimize the commission of evil acts, provide recompense to the injured and some form of punishment. However, most of those institutions exist outside the government. Now, each one of these institutions is comprised of sinful men, but most of these associations and groups are voluntary in organizational structure such that the ability of any one or two sinful persons to do actual, lasting harm to their neighbor is minimized. But, with government you have sinful men and women who are given power and nothing feeds the beast of sin like power. In fact, it is the desire for power that spills over into all of the basic crimes condemned by God and morality – especially murder and theft. So, I’m leery of an institution such as government which is full of sinful men who have power coupled with the protection of the law (granted to themselves by themselves) and who have weapons. I prefer to keep this institution small and local, subject to greater checks and balances by the other social and cultural institutions of the 2nd kingdom. Thus, there is an imprimatur for the state, however there is not a prescription for what the size or the extent or the powers allowed of any said state. Perhaps the most effective means of government and order is to be found at the local level, maybe at the provincial/state level, but my guess is only very rarely at a “national” or federal level. My libertarianism, such as it is, flows from that understanding.

Also, as a caution to those who may cite Luther’s arguments for the benefits of good government, the blessings that are bestowed upon society that result, and the necessity of government to keep the peace, remember, who and what was the form of government that he was addressing? I can almost guarantee that if I suggested that we curtail our government to be in line with that of Electoral Saxony or the city of Marburg in 1550, I’d be declared an unhinged, hyper-libertarian. Using Luther to support the welfare state of 2012, or even 1932, is an anachronistic error.

George

Also, this article is a bit unfair.

It seems to equate conservatism with racism and bigotry. Let us recall that fascism, and its branch Nazism, were movements of the left.

It also makes it a point to make no actual reference to any conservative thinkers, likely because everyone from Burke to Acton were anti-imperialist lovers of native cultures. Burke favored the liberation of India before it was cool, and even insisted on the British allowing them to “conserve” the genius of their race formalized in their culture. It was, generally, the British liberals (that is, those influenced by rationalism and the enlightenment) who tended to think, in accordance with Darwinism, that non-white races were genetically inferior, and that cultures “without the use of reason” were to be abolished, for nothing good could come without the use of western reason. This was the pretext and defense of colonial imperialism, not any sort of “conservatism.” One need only go to Cecil Rhodes to get a good idea of it.

It is also strange that he claims free market capitalism as a liberal idea, likely because now it is called “classical liberalism” in college classrooms. He therefore argues that it must be the inheritance of modern progressives and leftists! However, this too is unfair, for Adam Smith himself would have been well numbered with the allies of Burke, which is attested to by the fact that Smith claimed Burke to be the only person who thought like in on every subject without ever having met him. Why is the free market a conservative idea? Because it explicitly denies the power of human reason and affirms the organic self-organization of the market. “Organic self-organization” is the key and central concept of Conservatism, is it not? What is Laissez-faire, after all, except saying “nature can do it better than you and your bureaucrats, so don’t try anything.”

Anyway, just some notes. Steve Horowitz should be corrected on such little things.

George

Also, this article is a bit unfair.

It seems to equate conservatism with racism and bigotry. Let us recall that fascism, and its branch Nazism, were movements of the left.

It also makes it a point to make no actual reference to any conservative thinkers, likely because everyone from Burke to Acton were anti-imperialist lovers of native cultures. Burke favored the liberation of India before it was cool, and even insisted on the British allowing them to “conserve” the genius of their race formalized in their culture. It was, generally, the British liberals (that is, those influenced by rationalism and the enlightenment) who tended to think, in accordance with Darwinism, that non-white races were genetically inferior, and that cultures “without the use of reason” were to be abolished, for nothing good could come without the use of western reason. This was the pretext and defense of colonial imperialism, not any sort of “conservatism.” One need only go to Cecil Rhodes to get a good idea of it.

It is also strange that he claims free market capitalism as a liberal idea, likely because now it is called “classical liberalism” in college classrooms. He therefore argues that it must be the inheritance of modern progressives and leftists! However, this too is unfair, for Adam Smith himself would have been well numbered with the allies of Burke, which is attested to by the fact that Smith claimed Burke to be the only person who thought like in on every subject without ever having met him. Why is the free market a conservative idea? Because it explicitly denies the power of human reason and affirms the organic self-organization of the market. “Organic self-organization” is the key and central concept of Conservatism, is it not? What is Laissez-faire, after all, except saying “nature can do it better than you and your bureaucrats, so don’t try anything.”

Anyway, just some notes. Steve Horowitz should be corrected on such little things.

SKPeterson

George – there may be two versions of libertarianism, a positive view, which you describe above and a negative view, which I allude to in my post above.

Here’s a great quote from C. S. Lewis that is applicable:

I am a democrat [proponent of democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man.

I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government.

The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true … I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation…

The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.

From Present Concerns. The bolding is mine. I also agree wholeheartedly with the last sentence quoted – as perfect a description of our contemporary politicians as anything.

SKPeterson

George – there may be two versions of libertarianism, a positive view, which you describe above and a negative view, which I allude to in my post above.

Here’s a great quote from C. S. Lewis that is applicable:

I am a democrat [proponent of democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man.

I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government.

The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true … I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation…

The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.

From Present Concerns. The bolding is mine. I also agree wholeheartedly with the last sentence quoted – as perfect a description of our contemporary politicians as anything.

JH

George @8 touches on this, but my take on libertarianism is wrapped up in the “non-aggresion” principle. We have the right to our own life, liberty, and property, and they can’t be taken from us without our consent. To the extent that “liberals” or “conservatives” or “whigs” or “libertarians” understand and implement this principle in gov’t (or by abolishing gov’t) I say they do well.

JH

George @8 touches on this, but my take on libertarianism is wrapped up in the “non-aggresion” principle. We have the right to our own life, liberty, and property, and they can’t be taken from us without our consent. To the extent that “liberals” or “conservatives” or “whigs” or “libertarians” understand and implement this principle in gov’t (or by abolishing gov’t) I say they do well.

Grace

Gregory Hott @ 1

“1. The essential purpose of government is to prevent people from causing physical harm to other people–i.e. to enforce negative rights (“I have the right not to be harmed”)“

Your comment above is somewhat contradictory to your point at #5.

“5. Provided that personal behaviors do not put others into immanent physical danger, the government should stay out of controlling them–insisting only that as complete a disclosure of risks as possible be stated, and that the public not be required to bail people out of bad decisions. For example, I am against forcing people to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets. As long as they indemnify themselves by disclosing their desire at insurance-buying time, and as long as a company (or they themselves) are willing to cover the potential costs, it’s their business.“

Potential costs would NEVER be covered under any circumstances. Our insurance companies are overwhelmed with the current coverage’s.

Those who don’t wear seat belts put themselves in danger, but also those who are innocent passengers, or those who are no part of their vehicle. Seat belts retain people in their seats, they don’t fly about the car, injuring those around them during an accident. Further more, an individual who is thrown from their vehicle during an accident, can very likely fly into another car, another person, injuring or killing an innocent person/persons. Laws are made to protect the innocent, not just the person who is most stubborn, and ignorant, to ‘buckle up.

As for “motorcycle helmets” – I’m surprised you cannot see the wisdom regarding the “helmet” law. Those who have head injuries, mounting into thousands of dollars, extended nursing facilities, physical therapy, (if in fact they live through such an accident) could never be covered by high insurance premiums.

The laws are placed in position to protect not only the ignorant individual, but those who are innocent.

Grace

Gregory Hott @ 1

“1. The essential purpose of government is to prevent people from causing physical harm to other people–i.e. to enforce negative rights (“I have the right not to be harmed”)“

Your comment above is somewhat contradictory to your point at #5.

“5. Provided that personal behaviors do not put others into immanent physical danger, the government should stay out of controlling them–insisting only that as complete a disclosure of risks as possible be stated, and that the public not be required to bail people out of bad decisions. For example, I am against forcing people to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets. As long as they indemnify themselves by disclosing their desire at insurance-buying time, and as long as a company (or they themselves) are willing to cover the potential costs, it’s their business.“

Potential costs would NEVER be covered under any circumstances. Our insurance companies are overwhelmed with the current coverage’s.

Those who don’t wear seat belts put themselves in danger, but also those who are innocent passengers, or those who are no part of their vehicle. Seat belts retain people in their seats, they don’t fly about the car, injuring those around them during an accident. Further more, an individual who is thrown from their vehicle during an accident, can very likely fly into another car, another person, injuring or killing an innocent person/persons. Laws are made to protect the innocent, not just the person who is most stubborn, and ignorant, to ‘buckle up.

As for “motorcycle helmets” – I’m surprised you cannot see the wisdom regarding the “helmet” law. Those who have head injuries, mounting into thousands of dollars, extended nursing facilities, physical therapy, (if in fact they live through such an accident) could never be covered by high insurance premiums.

The laws are placed in position to protect not only the ignorant individual, but those who are innocent.

JH

In those cases, Grace, if you have someone flying across the road because they didn’t put on their seatbelt before they ran into the tree, you charge them or their estate for any damages the flying meat causes.

As far as the helmet goes- most often those who wear the helmet have much larger medical bills- due to the fact that they actually survive.

JH

In those cases, Grace, if you have someone flying across the road because they didn’t put on their seatbelt before they ran into the tree, you charge them or their estate for any damages the flying meat causes.

As far as the helmet goes- most often those who wear the helmet have much larger medical bills- due to the fact that they actually survive.

JH

the point is, you don’t take peoples liberty or property away until AFTER they commit a crime. No harm no foul, no victim no crime, etc. If you start to try to do it before they commit the crime, you find yourself committing these crimes yourself.

JH

the point is, you don’t take peoples liberty or property away until AFTER they commit a crime. No harm no foul, no victim no crime, etc. If you start to try to do it before they commit the crime, you find yourself committing these crimes yourself.

Grace

trotk @4

“Steve Martin responds to Ron Paul as Grace does to Martin Luther. No logical argument, but plenty of insults.”

Ron Paul’s views being off the charts as far as libertarianism is concerned, are not “logical” – it’s no wonder people see right through his bone-headed ideas. He finds no reason to make laws that will protect others. It’s ISOLATIONISM EXTREME.

Ron Paul left the Lutheran church, aligned himself with the Episcopal Church and now attends First Baptist Church in Lake Jackson. Very interesting journey.

I can however, see why Lutherans pander, support, Ron Paul. After all he was raised in a Lutheran family, two of his brothers are Lutheran pastors. Below, an interesting answer Ron Paul gave to; Christianity Today, October 2011

“Q – “Can you talk about your faith background? For instance, did you have a conversion experience?“

“Not as some others describe it. I think the most important religious experience I had was when I was raised in a Lutheran church where confirmation was very important. Church was obviously very important. We all went to church every week as a family affair. But confirmation was when we got to be teenagers and make a decision to go through the lessons and study and learn and make a commitment. At home, birthdays were something, but no parties. Of course it was during World War II and the Great Depression, so there weren’t a lot of parties, but there was an acknowledgement. But confirmation was a very important event. Everybody in the family came and it was acknowledged. Yes, I remember that very clearly, because we were old enough to make a commitment and that was when the commitment was made.“

NOTE: Not one word stated about Jesus Christ, God or LORD. It’s all about lessons and study and a “commitment” to what?

Grace

trotk @4

“Steve Martin responds to Ron Paul as Grace does to Martin Luther. No logical argument, but plenty of insults.”

Ron Paul’s views being off the charts as far as libertarianism is concerned, are not “logical” – it’s no wonder people see right through his bone-headed ideas. He finds no reason to make laws that will protect others. It’s ISOLATIONISM EXTREME.

Ron Paul left the Lutheran church, aligned himself with the Episcopal Church and now attends First Baptist Church in Lake Jackson. Very interesting journey.

I can however, see why Lutherans pander, support, Ron Paul. After all he was raised in a Lutheran family, two of his brothers are Lutheran pastors. Below, an interesting answer Ron Paul gave to; Christianity Today, October 2011

“Q – “Can you talk about your faith background? For instance, did you have a conversion experience?“

“Not as some others describe it. I think the most important religious experience I had was when I was raised in a Lutheran church where confirmation was very important. Church was obviously very important. We all went to church every week as a family affair. But confirmation was when we got to be teenagers and make a decision to go through the lessons and study and learn and make a commitment. At home, birthdays were something, but no parties. Of course it was during World War II and the Great Depression, so there weren’t a lot of parties, but there was an acknowledgement. But confirmation was a very important event. Everybody in the family came and it was acknowledged. Yes, I remember that very clearly, because we were old enough to make a commitment and that was when the commitment was made.“

NOTE: Not one word stated about Jesus Christ, God or LORD. It’s all about lessons and study and a “commitment” to what?

JH

Better go with Romney, then.

JH

Better go with Romney, then.

Grace

JH @ 14 and 15

“In those cases, Grace, if you have someone flying across the road because they didn’t put on their seatbelt before they ran into the tree, you charge them or their estate for any damages the flying meat causes. “

That is complete nonsense –

The vast majority of those who mock the laws to protect not only themselves but the innocent, don’t have the money or sizeable estate, to reimburse those they have harmed – never mind the medical costs they incure because of their inability to protect themselves and others. It’s selfish, and childish. In essence, this type of individual needs restrictions to control their behavior.

Grace

JH @ 14 and 15

“In those cases, Grace, if you have someone flying across the road because they didn’t put on their seatbelt before they ran into the tree, you charge them or their estate for any damages the flying meat causes. “

That is complete nonsense –

The vast majority of those who mock the laws to protect not only themselves but the innocent, don’t have the money or sizeable estate, to reimburse those they have harmed – never mind the medical costs they incure because of their inability to protect themselves and others. It’s selfish, and childish. In essence, this type of individual needs restrictions to control their behavior.

Grace

JH @ 17

So far, my choice, .. choosing from the front runners is Rick Santorum.

Grace

JH @ 17

So far, my choice, .. choosing from the front runners is Rick Santorum.

JH

can you talk a little more about how we should spend all this money stopping people from maybe hurting themselves or other people? fascinating….

JH

can you talk a little more about how we should spend all this money stopping people from maybe hurting themselves or other people? fascinating….

SKPeterson

Grace – He’s talking about his faith background. Growing up Lutheran he wasn’t going to be experiencing any “I gave my life to Jesus when I was age X>” type answers.

Curious quote here:

The vast majority of those who mock the laws to protect not only themselves but the innocent, don’t have the money or sizeable estate, to reimburse those they have harmed – never mind the medical costs they incure because of their inability to protect themselves and others. It’s selfish, and childish. In essence, this type of individual needs restrictions to control their behavior.

So, one, you’re saying we need to impose higher costs on people who cannot afford those costs. Two, when you say “their inability to protect themselves and others” I’m curious. Are all people who cannot protect themselves in need of restrictions to control their behavior? What if they can protect themselves, but maybe not those “others”? Should they have an “others protection tax” imposed upon them? Or, maybe, since these people are irresponsible, cost society so much, and cannot protect themselves or others, and thereby becoming intolerable burdens upon all of the rest of us, should we just ship them off to special facilities where their behavior can be eliminated, er, ah, better controlled?

SKPeterson

Grace – He’s talking about his faith background. Growing up Lutheran he wasn’t going to be experiencing any “I gave my life to Jesus when I was age X>” type answers.

Curious quote here:

The vast majority of those who mock the laws to protect not only themselves but the innocent, don’t have the money or sizeable estate, to reimburse those they have harmed – never mind the medical costs they incure because of their inability to protect themselves and others. It’s selfish, and childish. In essence, this type of individual needs restrictions to control their behavior.

So, one, you’re saying we need to impose higher costs on people who cannot afford those costs. Two, when you say “their inability to protect themselves and others” I’m curious. Are all people who cannot protect themselves in need of restrictions to control their behavior? What if they can protect themselves, but maybe not those “others”? Should they have an “others protection tax” imposed upon them? Or, maybe, since these people are irresponsible, cost society so much, and cannot protect themselves or others, and thereby becoming intolerable burdens upon all of the rest of us, should we just ship them off to special facilities where their behavior can be eliminated, er, ah, better controlled?

Grace

JH @ 20

“can you talk a little more about how we should spend all this money stopping people from maybe hurting themselves or other people? fascinating….“

“Fascinating”? –

Think it over for yourself, it’s not difficult!

Grace

JH @ 20

“can you talk a little more about how we should spend all this money stopping people from maybe hurting themselves or other people? fascinating….“

“Fascinating”? –

Think it over for yourself, it’s not difficult!

Grace

SKPeterson @ 21

It isn’t complicated. Everyone should use their seat belts, OR be ticketed for not doing so – the same goes for those who refuse to wear helmets when riding their bike –

Insurance companies can be contacted when an individual refuses to use seat belts and helmets after the second time. Of course the tickets become more costly if they continue this behavior.

Grace

SKPeterson @ 21

It isn’t complicated. Everyone should use their seat belts, OR be ticketed for not doing so – the same goes for those who refuse to wear helmets when riding their bike –

Insurance companies can be contacted when an individual refuses to use seat belts and helmets after the second time. Of course the tickets become more costly if they continue this behavior.

Do you have figures to back up your assertion that the costs of life insurance, medical care and property damage associated with accidents involving those who don’t wear seat belts or helmets exceed the premiums paid plus applicable deductibles?

It would seem that insurance companies have had severely deteriorating actuarial abilities over the last decade or so if what you say is accurate. Since insurance companies are generally not loss-seeking companies, I would think that those that continually fail to price risk correctly would go out of business unless they are subsidized in some way by the state.

SKPeterson

Grace,

Do you have figures to back up your assertion that the costs of life insurance, medical care and property damage associated with accidents involving those who don’t wear seat belts or helmets exceed the premiums paid plus applicable deductibles?

It would seem that insurance companies have had severely deteriorating actuarial abilities over the last decade or so if what you say is accurate. Since insurance companies are generally not loss-seeking companies, I would think that those that continually fail to price risk correctly would go out of business unless they are subsidized in some way by the state.

DonS

I’m convinced. I’m going to support a law requiring everyone to wear a protective layer of bubble wrap every time they leave their home — should save bazillions in medical costs, so it is easily justifiable.

Oh, and cars and trains are hereby banned.

JH’s 19th Amendment proposal is intriguing…. 😉

DonS

I’m convinced. I’m going to support a law requiring everyone to wear a protective layer of bubble wrap every time they leave their home — should save bazillions in medical costs, so it is easily justifiable.

Oh, and cars and trains are hereby banned.

JH’s 19th Amendment proposal is intriguing…. 😉

Cincinnatus

JH@24: Haha.

I came in noticing a comment by Grace that began with some sanity and, will, grace. But then I scrolled down and it was all insane drivel again.

Grace, your argument for mandatory seatbelt usage is idiosyncratic and ridiculous. Seatbelt regulations were established because the government decided that its job description included protecting people from their own bad decisions. I’ve never before heard anyone argue that seatbelt regulations exist to protect random passersby from flying corpses. Why? Because it’s a stupid argument. Why? Please explain where you draw the line. Yes, it’s theoretically possible that seatbelt regulations and the enormous/intrusive policing infrastructure used to enforce these and other inane regulations could save one or two folks from flying corpses–only theoretically, mind you. But you know what’s statistically more dangerous to other people than flying bodies? Driving cars themselves. We should outlaw driving because far more people are struck by flying hulks of steel, regardless of whether the driver is strapped in, than by flying corpses.

Laws and regulations should exist to prohibit clear and universal dangers: drinking and driving should be prohibited because it is always dangerous to others. Meanwhile, going beltless in the car is a classic case of a victimless crime if there ever was one. There’s no point in erecting an entire legal and enforcement structure to prohibit a statistical anomaly. Yours is the same sort of logic that undergirds oppressive raw milk regulations, for instance: even if I am fully aware of the “risks” (which are minuscule or absent) and really want to do so, I cannot purchase and consume raw milk because there is an (undocumented, purely speculative) potential that I could get sick from drinking it. But why is it the government’s job to ensure that I am “safe” from all possibly conceivable dangers, no matter how implausible?

Cincinnatus

JH@24: Haha.

I came in noticing a comment by Grace that began with some sanity and, will, grace. But then I scrolled down and it was all insane drivel again.

Grace, your argument for mandatory seatbelt usage is idiosyncratic and ridiculous. Seatbelt regulations were established because the government decided that its job description included protecting people from their own bad decisions. I’ve never before heard anyone argue that seatbelt regulations exist to protect random passersby from flying corpses. Why? Because it’s a stupid argument. Why? Please explain where you draw the line. Yes, it’s theoretically possible that seatbelt regulations and the enormous/intrusive policing infrastructure used to enforce these and other inane regulations could save one or two folks from flying corpses–only theoretically, mind you. But you know what’s statistically more dangerous to other people than flying bodies? Driving cars themselves. We should outlaw driving because far more people are struck by flying hulks of steel, regardless of whether the driver is strapped in, than by flying corpses.

Laws and regulations should exist to prohibit clear and universal dangers: drinking and driving should be prohibited because it is always dangerous to others. Meanwhile, going beltless in the car is a classic case of a victimless crime if there ever was one. There’s no point in erecting an entire legal and enforcement structure to prohibit a statistical anomaly. Yours is the same sort of logic that undergirds oppressive raw milk regulations, for instance: even if I am fully aware of the “risks” (which are minuscule or absent) and really want to do so, I cannot purchase and consume raw milk because there is an (undocumented, purely speculative) potential that I could get sick from drinking it. But why is it the government’s job to ensure that I am “safe” from all possibly conceivable dangers, no matter how implausible?

http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

SKPeterson, you’re making this way too complicated with your questions of principle. We don’t need to know that. Just like we don’t need to think about whether the laws make people stop thinking about their own safety since the government has told them what will keep them safe. Just like we don’t need to ask whether car manufacturers would have come up with better safety features apart from these laws. Just like we don’t have to think of whether insurance companies would have handled this better on their own.

So it really is easy. Just point to something the state offers, and make an argument for how it helps. It doesn’t have to help more than another alternative. If it helps at all, then you have made a persuasive argument against liberty, which we all know is just a cover for doing drugs and painting houses ugly colors. The sooner the state has unlimited power the better. Then it can do unlimited good.

http://www.oldsolar.com/currentblog.php Rick Ritchie

SKPeterson, you’re making this way too complicated with your questions of principle. We don’t need to know that. Just like we don’t need to think about whether the laws make people stop thinking about their own safety since the government has told them what will keep them safe. Just like we don’t need to ask whether car manufacturers would have come up with better safety features apart from these laws. Just like we don’t have to think of whether insurance companies would have handled this better on their own.

So it really is easy. Just point to something the state offers, and make an argument for how it helps. It doesn’t have to help more than another alternative. If it helps at all, then you have made a persuasive argument against liberty, which we all know is just a cover for doing drugs and painting houses ugly colors. The sooner the state has unlimited power the better. Then it can do unlimited good.

Grace

DonS @27

“I’m convinced. I’m going to support a law requiring everyone to wear a protective layer of bubble wrap every time they leave their home — should save bazillions in medical costs, so it is easily justifiable.”

It isn’t just money, but it doesn’t surprise me that is your lame joke. It’s about human life, that of those who don’t give a damn, and the innocent, who suffer at the hands of ignorant buffoons !!

Making a joke such as “I’m convinced. I’m going to support a law requiring everyone to wear a protective layer of bubble wrap every time they leave their home” – is a slap in the face to those who have endured accidents that could have been prevented if the necessary precautions had been taken.

It’s a whole different story when it’s your loved one. So, Don, snark all the laws, joke about “bubble wrap” and then check out the accidents, where people were protected from great bodily injury because they were seat belted, and helmeted.

Grace

DonS @27

“I’m convinced. I’m going to support a law requiring everyone to wear a protective layer of bubble wrap every time they leave their home — should save bazillions in medical costs, so it is easily justifiable.”

It isn’t just money, but it doesn’t surprise me that is your lame joke. It’s about human life, that of those who don’t give a damn, and the innocent, who suffer at the hands of ignorant buffoons !!

Making a joke such as “I’m convinced. I’m going to support a law requiring everyone to wear a protective layer of bubble wrap every time they leave their home” – is a slap in the face to those who have endured accidents that could have been prevented if the necessary precautions had been taken.

It’s a whole different story when it’s your loved one. So, Don, snark all the laws, joke about “bubble wrap” and then check out the accidents, where people were protected from great bodily injury because they were seat belted, and helmeted.

DonS

Grace, I wear seatbelts. It’s common sense to do so. That’s not the point.

My “lame joke” was a lighthearted way of chiding you to consider that governments don’t know where to stop. That’s the problem. Seatbelts today, authorization for the state to administer HPV vaccines to 12 year old girls, without parental consent or knowledge, tomorrow. It’s for the safety and well being of the girl, you understand. Or, at least, that’s the rationale California used when it enacted that very law.

No, thanks. I don’t need Big Mama Government telling me what to do to keep myself safe. Nor do you. Wake up while you still have some of your hard-won individual freedoms left.

DonS

Grace, I wear seatbelts. It’s common sense to do so. That’s not the point.

My “lame joke” was a lighthearted way of chiding you to consider that governments don’t know where to stop. That’s the problem. Seatbelts today, authorization for the state to administer HPV vaccines to 12 year old girls, without parental consent or knowledge, tomorrow. It’s for the safety and well being of the girl, you understand. Or, at least, that’s the rationale California used when it enacted that very law.

No, thanks. I don’t need Big Mama Government telling me what to do to keep myself safe. Nor do you. Wake up while you still have some of your hard-won individual freedoms left.

Cincinnatus

Don, obviously any comment that critiques Grace’s argument must be a “lame joke.” It’s beneath her to address your actual point. After all, you’re probably just jealous of statists and their concern for our safety.

Cincinnatus

Don, obviously any comment that critiques Grace’s argument must be a “lame joke.” It’s beneath her to address your actual point. After all, you’re probably just jealous of statists and their concern for our safety.

Grace

DonS

There is nothing “lighthearted” about loved ones losing their lives in accidents – it’s not one of those subjects that needs a joke.

As for “vaccines” (HPV) – you don’t know how prevelant this is. Parents often ‘think that their children are not having sex, or not having sex, but their behavior is just as serious when it comes to STD’s. It’s too late, when your child has to be seen by a doctor, and the parent realizing that their child made a ‘mistake, that will follow them around FOREVER.

STD’s are serious, cancer of the cervix can be transmitted. Yes, yes, I’m sure I will read all the remarks of “my child was brought up to respect her/his body, and that of the other” – it only takes ONE TIME to transmit a disease that will harm the child, and there is no real cure. All the “I didn’t know, it was a mistake” will not change the result.

Grace

DonS

There is nothing “lighthearted” about loved ones losing their lives in accidents – it’s not one of those subjects that needs a joke.

As for “vaccines” (HPV) – you don’t know how prevelant this is. Parents often ‘think that their children are not having sex, or not having sex, but their behavior is just as serious when it comes to STD’s. It’s too late, when your child has to be seen by a doctor, and the parent realizing that their child made a ‘mistake, that will follow them around FOREVER.

STD’s are serious, cancer of the cervix can be transmitted. Yes, yes, I’m sure I will read all the remarks of “my child was brought up to respect her/his body, and that of the other” – it only takes ONE TIME to transmit a disease that will harm the child, and there is no real cure. All the “I didn’t know, it was a mistake” will not change the result.

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S.1 More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009.2 Adult seat belt use is the most effective way to save lives and reduce injuries in crashes.3 Yet millions of adults do not wear their seat belts on every trip.2

How big is the problem of crash-related injuries and death?

Motor vehicle crashes are a major public health problem.

More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009.2 The lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005. Young adults (18-24) have the highest crash-related injury rates of all adults.What is the impact of seat belt use? Seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about 50%. Air bags provide added protection but are not a substitute for seat belts. Air bags plus seat belts provide the greatest protection for adults.

What can be done to increase seat belt use among adults? When it comes to increasing seat belt use, individuals, government, and health professionals can help promote safety.

States can:

Pass a primary enforcement seat belt law.

Make sure that seat belt laws apply to everyone in the car, not just those in the front seat.

Ensure that fines for not wearing a seat belt are high enough to be effective.

Make sure that police and state troopers enforce all seat belt laws. Support seat belt laws with visible police presence and awareness campaigns for the public.

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S.1 More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009.2 Adult seat belt use is the most effective way to save lives and reduce injuries in crashes.3 Yet millions of adults do not wear their seat belts on every trip.2

How big is the problem of crash-related injuries and death?

Motor vehicle crashes are a major public health problem.

More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009.2 The lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005. Young adults (18-24) have the highest crash-related injury rates of all adults.What is the impact of seat belt use? Seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about 50%. Air bags provide added protection but are not a substitute for seat belts. Air bags plus seat belts provide the greatest protection for adults.

What can be done to increase seat belt use among adults? When it comes to increasing seat belt use, individuals, government, and health professionals can help promote safety.

States can:

Pass a primary enforcement seat belt law.

Make sure that seat belt laws apply to everyone in the car, not just those in the front seat.

Ensure that fines for not wearing a seat belt are high enough to be effective.

Make sure that police and state troopers enforce all seat belt laws. Support seat belt laws with visible police presence and awareness campaigns for the public.

You’re not making a coherent argument. You’re asserting that seatbelt regulations, among others, are justified because they prevent people from getting killed or injured (“think of the loved ones!”). But that doesn’t work. An infinite variety of activities and practices could injure or kill me or any other person. Just today, I slipped on ice on the sidewalk outside my condo; I could have been seriously injured. Should we outlaw sidewalks, ice, or walking? Maybe all three! Or maybe we should require everyone to wear helmets and kneepads when walking.

In other words, arguing that a regulation could make people safer isn’t sufficient justification for its existence in a constitutional republic. Indeed, I would probably be much safer if I had to wear a protective suit of bubble wrap whenever I left the home. But surely you wouldn’t agree that this is a valid regulation; it’s a “lame joke,” in your own words, in fact. But why do you reject this regulation but not seatbelt regulations, etc.?

Cincinnatus

Grace@33,

You’re not making a coherent argument. You’re asserting that seatbelt regulations, among others, are justified because they prevent people from getting killed or injured (“think of the loved ones!”). But that doesn’t work. An infinite variety of activities and practices could injure or kill me or any other person. Just today, I slipped on ice on the sidewalk outside my condo; I could have been seriously injured. Should we outlaw sidewalks, ice, or walking? Maybe all three! Or maybe we should require everyone to wear helmets and kneepads when walking.

In other words, arguing that a regulation could make people safer isn’t sufficient justification for its existence in a constitutional republic. Indeed, I would probably be much safer if I had to wear a protective suit of bubble wrap whenever I left the home. But surely you wouldn’t agree that this is a valid regulation; it’s a “lame joke,” in your own words, in fact. But why do you reject this regulation but not seatbelt regulations, etc.?

Cincinnatus

Also, you’re forgetting that many such regulations are unenforceable. Sorry, telling my idiot younger brother that it’s ILLEGAL not to wear seat belts and that he could get a ticket or die isn’t enough to convince him that he’s not too cool for seatbelts.

People either wear seatbelts or they don’t. People either drink raw milk or they don’t. And people die no matter what. It’s not the government’s job to ensure that I don’t die sooner due to my own poor decisions.

Cincinnatus

Also, you’re forgetting that many such regulations are unenforceable. Sorry, telling my idiot younger brother that it’s ILLEGAL not to wear seat belts and that he could get a ticket or die isn’t enough to convince him that he’s not too cool for seatbelts.

People either wear seatbelts or they don’t. People either drink raw milk or they don’t. And people die no matter what. It’s not the government’s job to ensure that I don’t die sooner due to my own poor decisions.

DonS

Wow, Grace. I did not expect you to go so far as to agree with the State of California in its latest trampling of parental rights — mandating that 12 year old girls can be vaccinated by authorities WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE. This goes along with its longstanding travesty of aborting the babies of minor girls without parental consent. That’s also a regulation existing in the guise of public health and safety.

Grace, you seem to be a full-fledged statist.

DonS

Wow, Grace. I did not expect you to go so far as to agree with the State of California in its latest trampling of parental rights — mandating that 12 year old girls can be vaccinated by authorities WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE. This goes along with its longstanding travesty of aborting the babies of minor girls without parental consent. That’s also a regulation existing in the guise of public health and safety.

Grace, you seem to be a full-fledged statist.

http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

Grace quotes the CDC saying (@34) that:

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. … Adult seat belt use is the most effective way to save lives and reduce injuries in crashes.

Um, wrong, CDC! The most effective way to remove this as a cause of death among those 5-34? Make it illegal for anyone under 35 to ride in a car!

Easy.

And if you disagree with my proposal, you’re objectively in favor of the leading cause of death for young people.

You monster!

http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

Grace quotes the CDC saying (@34) that:

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. … Adult seat belt use is the most effective way to save lives and reduce injuries in crashes.

Um, wrong, CDC! The most effective way to remove this as a cause of death among those 5-34? Make it illegal for anyone under 35 to ride in a car!

Easy.

And if you disagree with my proposal, you’re objectively in favor of the leading cause of death for young people.

The two points are unrelated. One is to protect youngsters from STD’s the other is to kill an infant – there is no connection. You as an attorney should know there is no connection. If you were arguing a case in court, I doubt you would garner an ounce of support using that analogy.

You may not know how prevalent STD’s are. I have many physcians whom I’m friends with, where you and I both live. OB/GYN’s see hundreds of patients, many are young girls./women. The rate of STD’s on a patient count is nearly 75 percent. These aren’t females who are prostitutes, or who come from disadvantaged homes, they are middle, upper incomes. Granted those who show symptoms are the very ones who seek medical attention at any age.

It’s tragic to hear these kinds of numbers, but sexual practices, even among youg people who have been taught, know better, are astounding. There isn’t much else we can do to protect them from disease. Diseases which will ruin their lives.. in many cases cause them NEVER to be able to have children.

Please don’t compare STD’s with abortion, it doesn’t come close to being the same thing. One ends the life of an infant, the other protects a child from disease.

I hate the idea of making vaccine mandatory, but the alternatives don’t balance the scales.

The two points are unrelated. One is to protect youngsters from STD’s the other is to kill an infant – there is no connection. You as an attorney should know there is no connection. If you were arguing a case in court, I doubt you would garner an ounce of support using that analogy.

You may not know how prevalent STD’s are. I have many physcians whom I’m friends with, where you and I both live. OB/GYN’s see hundreds of patients, many are young girls./women. The rate of STD’s on a patient count is nearly 75 percent. These aren’t females who are prostitutes, or who come from disadvantaged homes, they are middle, upper incomes. Granted those who show symptoms are the very ones who seek medical attention at any age.

It’s tragic to hear these kinds of numbers, but sexual practices, even among youg people who have been taught, know better, are astounding. There isn’t much else we can do to protect them from disease. Diseases which will ruin their lives.. in many cases cause them NEVER to be able to have children.

Please don’t compare STD’s with abortion, it doesn’t come close to being the same thing. One ends the life of an infant, the other protects a child from disease.

I hate the idea of making vaccine mandatory, but the alternatives don’t balance the scales.

DonS

Grace @ 39: tODD’s point @ 38 is well taken, Grace. Under the rationale you are furthering, where public safety trumps all other considerations of personal liberty or government intrusion and overreach, you are a monster if you are not promoting a law that would forbid all those 35 and under from riding in a car. That is, no doubt, the most effective way to eliminate vehicle accident deaths and injuries in that age group.

You should know full well that the right to an abortion is premised largely on the notion that it is for the health and safety of the mother. The rationale given for mandating that state agencies can perform or authorize abortions on minor children without parental consent or notification is that otherwise desperate minor girls will seek illegal abortions and potentially harm themselves. It is NOT, as you state, justified on the basis of killing a baby.

My analogies are on all fours, Grace. The government will justify no end of intrusion on our liberties on the basis of protecting our health and safety. Are you willing to let the government mandate these choices for you?

DonS

Grace @ 39: tODD’s point @ 38 is well taken, Grace. Under the rationale you are furthering, where public safety trumps all other considerations of personal liberty or government intrusion and overreach, you are a monster if you are not promoting a law that would forbid all those 35 and under from riding in a car. That is, no doubt, the most effective way to eliminate vehicle accident deaths and injuries in that age group.

You should know full well that the right to an abortion is premised largely on the notion that it is for the health and safety of the mother. The rationale given for mandating that state agencies can perform or authorize abortions on minor children without parental consent or notification is that otherwise desperate minor girls will seek illegal abortions and potentially harm themselves. It is NOT, as you state, justified on the basis of killing a baby.

My analogies are on all fours, Grace. The government will justify no end of intrusion on our liberties on the basis of protecting our health and safety. Are you willing to let the government mandate these choices for you?

Grace

DonS 40

YOU WROTE: “You should know full well that the right to an abortion is premised largely on the notion that it is for the health and safety of the mother. “

Don, you don’t have the facts. You points are bogus!

No Don, that is incorrect. It is because the expectant mother does not want to have a child. I have worked in PRO-LIFE, the information is not about the “health and safety of the mother” – it’s all about being able to finish high school, university, not wanting to go through pregnancy, the father doesn’t want the child, etc., The health of the mother is rarely the issue.

YOU WROTE: “You should know full well that the right to an abortion is premised largely on the notion that it is for the health and safety of the mother. “

Don, you don’t have the facts. You points are bogus!

No Don, that is incorrect. It is because the expectant mother does not want to have a child. I have worked in PRO-LIFE, the information is not about the “health and safety of the mother” – it’s all about being able to finish high school, university, not wanting to go through pregnancy, the father doesn’t want the child, etc., The health of the mother is rarely the issue.

Grace, I attend church with the leader of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. I know the issue very well. I’m not talking about the reality, or what abortion supporters say when they are off guard or “educating” children as to the advantages of killing their babies over having them out of wedlock. I’m talking about the rationale they present when they are trying to win court cases or prevent parental notification or consent laws from passing. The arguments are always about the preservation of the health and safety of the minor pregnant girls. That is simply fact.

DonS

Grace, I attend church with the leader of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. I know the issue very well. I’m not talking about the reality, or what abortion supporters say when they are off guard or “educating” children as to the advantages of killing their babies over having them out of wedlock. I’m talking about the rationale they present when they are trying to win court cases or prevent parental notification or consent laws from passing. The arguments are always about the preservation of the health and safety of the minor pregnant girls. That is simply fact.

JH

This is like a troll buffet….

I hate to do a thread hijack, but would anyone like to start a side conversation that discusses the libertarian movement of the past 30 years?

My personal experience: found libertarianism right-smack-in-the-middle of all the stereotypical right-wing extremist subcultures. However, i will say this, I’m from (and stay in) the deep south. Of all the crazies I run into- and that’s hundreds- i’ve probably met 5 actual racists…. I’ll call that 1%. 80% like the rebel flag- but 99% like their black neighbors.

JH

This is like a troll buffet….

I hate to do a thread hijack, but would anyone like to start a side conversation that discusses the libertarian movement of the past 30 years?

My personal experience: found libertarianism right-smack-in-the-middle of all the stereotypical right-wing extremist subcultures. However, i will say this, I’m from (and stay in) the deep south. Of all the crazies I run into- and that’s hundreds- i’ve probably met 5 actual racists…. I’ll call that 1%. 80% like the rebel flag- but 99% like their black neighbors.

JH

i use the term “crazies” loosely. only the 1% of the 1% are certifiable…

JH

i use the term “crazies” loosely. only the 1% of the 1% are certifiable…

SKPeterson

JH – you obviously care nothing for the 1000’s of innocent 12 year old girls vaccinated for HPV who are killed every year by corpses hurtling through the air because the pre-deceased corpse person failed to buckle their seat belt IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW!!!!

How can you even think about obfuscating the matter by dwelling on your sad, pathetic racist Southernerness? There should be a law or two or three against your sort of callous irresponsible ignorant buffoons!

SKPeterson

JH – you obviously care nothing for the 1000’s of innocent 12 year old girls vaccinated for HPV who are killed every year by corpses hurtling through the air because the pre-deceased corpse person failed to buckle their seat belt IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW!!!!

How can you even think about obfuscating the matter by dwelling on your sad, pathetic racist Southernerness? There should be a law or two or three against your sort of callous irresponsible ignorant buffoons!

JH

born and raised in SC, where there’s no helmet law….

JH

born and raised in SC, where there’s no helmet law….

Grace

DonS @ 42

YOU WROTE: .. “Grace, I attend church with the leader of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.”

Yes, I know who the leader is .. Gregg Cunningham, he’s connected to Calvary Chapel Church, in Mission Viejo.

YOU WROTE: .. “I know the issue very well. I’m not talking about the reality, or what abortion supporters say when they are off guard or “educating” children as to the advantages of killing their babies over having them out of wedlock. I’m talking about the rationale they present when they are trying to win court cases or prevent parental notification or consent laws from passing. The arguments are always about the preservation of the health and safety of the minor pregnant girls. That is simply fact.”

Your analogy in post # 40 is not equal …… ABORTION vs. Vaccines – vaccines are mandatory for many diseases, the one which protects females from STD’s is not the same as as abortion.

Making a case in court for the “preservation and health” of a minor does not negate the fact that 6 percent are for that very reason, but the rest are for “for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).” according to statistics. I was using the statistics as they are, not what is argued in a court of law. Of course pro-abortion advocates will hammer away at it being “health and safety” reasons for abortion.

Don, we most likely agree on almost everything in regards to abortion, the wonderful life of an infant, snuffed out. I have been, as I stated earlier, very involved since I was very young.

I hope one day the laws will be changed. Are you involved with the process at this time? I don’t ask for any reason other than, if you are, I would love to keep you in prayer.

God bless you.

Grace

DonS @ 42

YOU WROTE: .. “Grace, I attend church with the leader of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.”

Yes, I know who the leader is .. Gregg Cunningham, he’s connected to Calvary Chapel Church, in Mission Viejo.

YOU WROTE: .. “I know the issue very well. I’m not talking about the reality, or what abortion supporters say when they are off guard or “educating” children as to the advantages of killing their babies over having them out of wedlock. I’m talking about the rationale they present when they are trying to win court cases or prevent parental notification or consent laws from passing. The arguments are always about the preservation of the health and safety of the minor pregnant girls. That is simply fact.”

Your analogy in post # 40 is not equal …… ABORTION vs. Vaccines – vaccines are mandatory for many diseases, the one which protects females from STD’s is not the same as as abortion.

Making a case in court for the “preservation and health” of a minor does not negate the fact that 6 percent are for that very reason, but the rest are for “for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).” according to statistics. I was using the statistics as they are, not what is argued in a court of law. Of course pro-abortion advocates will hammer away at it being “health and safety” reasons for abortion.

Don, we most likely agree on almost everything in regards to abortion, the wonderful life of an infant, snuffed out. I have been, as I stated earlier, very involved since I was very young.

I hope one day the laws will be changed. Are you involved with the process at this time? I don’t ask for any reason other than, if you are, I would love to keep you in prayer.

God bless you.

Cincinnatus

JH@43: I sure am glad to hear (see?) you say that. I’m from the South, and I seldom met bonified racists. In fact, I never met what I would deem a bonified racist, but I qualify with “seldom” to keep my story plausible.

Now I’m in Wisconsin and the prejudice (see what I did there?) persists that Southerners are, in general, racists, even if they sublimate their racism in ways other than explicit segregation. In fact, there are academic political scientists in my own department who advance the thesis that Obama didn’t do well in the South because most Southern whites are closet racists–and they even think they have statistics to prove it!

In any case, I don’t buy the thesis that right-wing southerners are in any meaningful, general sense racists–and I certainly don’t buy the thesis that Ron Paul in particular and libertarians in general are racists. One (Southern) libertarian activist and thinker I know likes to formulate it this way: libertarianism is the only truly anti-racist political theory because it evaluates an individual solely as an individual and not as a member of a group. I think he’s right. I also think the sometimes radical individualism of libertarianism is intensely problematic, but attempts to paint Ron Paul as a bigot are misguided in many ways, both practical and philosophical.

Cincinnatus

JH@43: I sure am glad to hear (see?) you say that. I’m from the South, and I seldom met bonified racists. In fact, I never met what I would deem a bonified racist, but I qualify with “seldom” to keep my story plausible.

Now I’m in Wisconsin and the prejudice (see what I did there?) persists that Southerners are, in general, racists, even if they sublimate their racism in ways other than explicit segregation. In fact, there are academic political scientists in my own department who advance the thesis that Obama didn’t do well in the South because most Southern whites are closet racists–and they even think they have statistics to prove it!

In any case, I don’t buy the thesis that right-wing southerners are in any meaningful, general sense racists–and I certainly don’t buy the thesis that Ron Paul in particular and libertarians in general are racists. One (Southern) libertarian activist and thinker I know likes to formulate it this way: libertarianism is the only truly anti-racist political theory because it evaluates an individual solely as an individual and not as a member of a group. I think he’s right. I also think the sometimes radical individualism of libertarianism is intensely problematic, but attempts to paint Ron Paul as a bigot are misguided in many ways, both practical and philosophical.

JH

Agreed.

One aspect of this argument vis-a-vis the South is the fact that the AA population down here is considerable (and increasing). Not just in the inner city, but EVERYwhere. So when we point at the problems of public education, or welfare, or healthcare, or crime, it often has a racial component.

In any case, in the far-right crowd libertarianism is pretty well rampant. And from there a person is faced with the liberal roots of the movement (as well as the conservative roots). I hear often from good ol’ boys who are ready to legalize drugs, bring the boys home, repeal compulsory attendance laws, and buy/sell raw milk.

JH

Agreed.

One aspect of this argument vis-a-vis the South is the fact that the AA population down here is considerable (and increasing). Not just in the inner city, but EVERYwhere. So when we point at the problems of public education, or welfare, or healthcare, or crime, it often has a racial component.

In any case, in the far-right crowd libertarianism is pretty well rampant. And from there a person is faced with the liberal roots of the movement (as well as the conservative roots). I hear often from good ol’ boys who are ready to legalize drugs, bring the boys home, repeal compulsory attendance laws, and buy/sell raw milk.

JH

where’s your latin? It’s bona fide

JH

where’s your latin? It’s bona fide

Tom Hering

I dunno, Cincinnatus @ 48. I lived in Virginia for four years, and met more than a few genuine racists. But then I’ve met more than a few genuine racists here in Wisconsin, too, where I’ve lived all the other years of my life.

Tom Hering

I dunno, Cincinnatus @ 48. I lived in Virginia for four years, and met more than a few genuine racists. But then I’ve met more than a few genuine racists here in Wisconsin, too, where I’ve lived all the other years of my life.

JunkerGeorg

Wow. amazed how the thread got so offtrack–on seat belts and vaccines for 12 yr. olds, but not hard to guess how/by whom.

Moving on, just thought I’d share Rick Santorum’s view on libertarianism. I’m sure some here would love his position as much as I and others here abhor it. Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up what he says:

“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

The fuller piece from Fox Nows on Santorum’s take is in the link below:

Wow. amazed how the thread got so offtrack–on seat belts and vaccines for 12 yr. olds, but not hard to guess how/by whom.

Moving on, just thought I’d share Rick Santorum’s view on libertarianism. I’m sure some here would love his position as much as I and others here abhor it. Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up what he says:

“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

The fuller piece from Fox Nows on Santorum’s take is in the link below:

Tom@51: And I lived in Virginia for 23 years, and hope to return. My family has been there for 250+ years, with no signs of leaving. Define “genuine racist.” To me, the category “genuine racist” shouldn’t include folks like my grandfather (recently died after 91 years) who, while he maintained a few residual but ultimately harmless prejudices regarding “negroes,” held no ill-will toward blacks (or other minorities) and would never have taken any action to disadvantage or harm them. It probably also should not include guys with whom I was raised who told jokes involving racial topics, though I of course don’t condone that practice.

Racism, in my non-idiosyncratic opinion (Wikipedia even agrees with me!), is the idea that races are intrinsically different in a way that justifies harmful or pernicious discrimination. I never met a BONA FIDE racist in my day. Whites in the South exist in such close proximity with blacks that the two have to get along or social order simply won’t be possible; this is untrue of the North, by the way, where cities like Milwaukee maintain the distinction of being some of the most segregated places in the nation, both physically and in terms of socioeconomic achievement. I’m not denying that actual racists exist in the South (and of course they did exist in notable numbers not so long ago; my great grandfather, who passed long before my time, after all, was a prominent member of his local KKK), but they certainly do not exist in sufficient numbers to serve as a fitting stereotype of the South. And they definitely no longer exist in sufficient numbers to construct a political theory or electoral explanation on the basis of their alleged prejudices. And Southern libertarians are even less likely to be racists, in my experience.

Cincinnatus

JH@50: You’re right, of course. That’s genuinely embarrassing. Ha.

Tom@51: And I lived in Virginia for 23 years, and hope to return. My family has been there for 250+ years, with no signs of leaving. Define “genuine racist.” To me, the category “genuine racist” shouldn’t include folks like my grandfather (recently died after 91 years) who, while he maintained a few residual but ultimately harmless prejudices regarding “negroes,” held no ill-will toward blacks (or other minorities) and would never have taken any action to disadvantage or harm them. It probably also should not include guys with whom I was raised who told jokes involving racial topics, though I of course don’t condone that practice.

Racism, in my non-idiosyncratic opinion (Wikipedia even agrees with me!), is the idea that races are intrinsically different in a way that justifies harmful or pernicious discrimination. I never met a BONA FIDE racist in my day. Whites in the South exist in such close proximity with blacks that the two have to get along or social order simply won’t be possible; this is untrue of the North, by the way, where cities like Milwaukee maintain the distinction of being some of the most segregated places in the nation, both physically and in terms of socioeconomic achievement. I’m not denying that actual racists exist in the South (and of course they did exist in notable numbers not so long ago; my great grandfather, who passed long before my time, after all, was a prominent member of his local KKK), but they certainly do not exist in sufficient numbers to serve as a fitting stereotype of the South. And they definitely no longer exist in sufficient numbers to construct a political theory or electoral explanation on the basis of their alleged prejudices. And Southern libertarians are even less likely to be racists, in my experience.

Cincinnatus

And yeah, I never heard the “n-word” used in a genuinely nasty, pejorative context by a white person until I moved North–for whatever that anecdote is worth–and I grew up among some of the most classically “white trash” folks the South had to offer.

Cincinnatus

And yeah, I never heard the “n-word” used in a genuinely nasty, pejorative context by a white person until I moved North–for whatever that anecdote is worth–and I grew up among some of the most classically “white trash” folks the South had to offer.

Grace

Since Calvary Chapel has been mentioned here tonight on the blog, I feel led to tell everyone here that Pastor Chuck Smith, announced on New Year’s Day that he has lung cancer. He is undergoing many test, biopsy, blood work etc. Bless his heart, he is in great spirits, he is trusting God in whatever should be HIS Will. Pastor Chuck Smith is an inspiration to everyone around him.

Grace

Since Calvary Chapel has been mentioned here tonight on the blog, I feel led to tell everyone here that Pastor Chuck Smith, announced on New Year’s Day that he has lung cancer. He is undergoing many test, biopsy, blood work etc. Bless his heart, he is in great spirits, he is trusting God in whatever should be HIS Will. Pastor Chuck Smith is an inspiration to everyone around him.

john c

On the contrary Fr Hogg, there are matters that are beyond the realm of the local parish. In education, health and the environment, parish and state lack the funds and expertise to serve the needs of their citizens. It is a fundemental flaw in the design of Federation. While the states have the responsibility to deliver services, they lack the capacity to raise income taxes and services are rarely delivered in a way that responds to the needs of the community, particularly in communities stricken by poverty. This is unlikely to change. The Federal government will never surrender the right to raise income tax to the states. Grace, the Australian Government has recently announcedplans to introduce a NoFault Disability Insurance Plan to be funded by a rise in personal income tax. To everyone’s surprise, the conservative opposition supports the plan and I haven’t heard a peep from the socialist Murdoch press.

john c

On the contrary Fr Hogg, there are matters that are beyond the realm of the local parish. In education, health and the environment, parish and state lack the funds and expertise to serve the needs of their citizens. It is a fundemental flaw in the design of Federation. While the states have the responsibility to deliver services, they lack the capacity to raise income taxes and services are rarely delivered in a way that responds to the needs of the community, particularly in communities stricken by poverty. This is unlikely to change. The Federal government will never surrender the right to raise income tax to the states. Grace, the Australian Government has recently announcedplans to introduce a NoFault Disability Insurance Plan to be funded by a rise in personal income tax. To everyone’s surprise, the conservative opposition supports the plan and I haven’t heard a peep from the socialist Murdoch press.

Grace

John C @56

“Grace, the Australian Government has recently announcedplans to introduce a NoFault Disability Insurance Plan to be funded by a rise in personal income tax.”

That’s very interesting. When you state “NoFault” what does that entail?

We in the U.S do have “disability” insurance. There are many variations of how much, one’s age, long term, etc.

Grace

John C @56

“Grace, the Australian Government has recently announcedplans to introduce a NoFault Disability Insurance Plan to be funded by a rise in personal income tax.”

That’s very interesting. When you state “NoFault” what does that entail?

We in the U.S do have “disability” insurance. There are many variations of how much, one’s age, long term, etc.

Former CC, it’s a cheap shot to post a website, just when I announced on this blog that Pastor Chuck Smith has been diagnosed with cancer. Then to top it off, the site mentions his cancer, and goes right on with a list of grievances

There is no “bubble to burst” – This situation has been talked about for some time. Why haven’t those who claim abuse gone straight to the authorities, and accused the abuser? – I mean all of them. If they have, when will the court case be on the books? If and when this comes to trial, we will then see if this man is guilty as charged.

Posting endless accounts of abuse on a blog, this one or a dozen others, will do nothing to eliminate the problem.

If I had been abused in this way, I would have gone straight to the POLICE DEPARTMENT, I wouldn’t have wasted a single hour.

Pastor Chuck Smith is not the villain, but he has been made, without proof, the one to be attacked.

This folks, is not Godly.

Grace

Former CC @ 55

Former CC, it’s a cheap shot to post a website, just when I announced on this blog that Pastor Chuck Smith has been diagnosed with cancer. Then to top it off, the site mentions his cancer, and goes right on with a list of grievances

There is no “bubble to burst” – This situation has been talked about for some time. Why haven’t those who claim abuse gone straight to the authorities, and accused the abuser? – I mean all of them. If they have, when will the court case be on the books? If and when this comes to trial, we will then see if this man is guilty as charged.

Posting endless accounts of abuse on a blog, this one or a dozen others, will do nothing to eliminate the problem.

If I had been abused in this way, I would have gone straight to the POLICE DEPARTMENT, I wouldn’t have wasted a single hour.

Pastor Chuck Smith is not the villain, but he has been made, without proof, the one to be attacked.

This folks, is not Godly.

JH

@56: My state, GA, has an income tax

And parishes are perfectly capable of taking care of health and education (still plenty of church-affiliated hospitals and parochial schools)

As far as environment goes- apply common law property rights and you can handle pretty much anything. Gov’t can enforce and adjudicate until a viable private system stands up. should take at least 6 months.

JH

@56: My state, GA, has an income tax

And parishes are perfectly capable of taking care of health and education (still plenty of church-affiliated hospitals and parochial schools)

As far as environment goes- apply common law property rights and you can handle pretty much anything. Gov’t can enforce and adjudicate until a viable private system stands up. should take at least 6 months.

Grace

JH @ 60

Income tax is needed, it should be lowered in California, but not thrown out.

“And parishes are perfectly capable of taking care of health and education (still plenty of church-affiliated hospitals and parochial schools)”

No, not all churches are in a position to care for everyones “health and education” that is a fallacy. The cost of Christian schools is high – you cannot expect teachers to work without adequate salaries, to care for their own families.

I’m not a fan of public education, but it certainly beats children who, if there was none, would be further behind with no way of making a living.

That sort of libertarian thinking puts our country back hundreds of years. Those were times when the majority of people were farmers, doctors were in short supply.

All the dreaming in the world will never sugar coat the days of starvation, lack of doctors, nurses, hospitals, and staff to run them. Add to that competent police forces, and all the rest, that most people take for granted……. the is libertarian dreamer.

Grace

JH @ 60

Income tax is needed, it should be lowered in California, but not thrown out.

“And parishes are perfectly capable of taking care of health and education (still plenty of church-affiliated hospitals and parochial schools)”

No, not all churches are in a position to care for everyones “health and education” that is a fallacy. The cost of Christian schools is high – you cannot expect teachers to work without adequate salaries, to care for their own families.

I’m not a fan of public education, but it certainly beats children who, if there was none, would be further behind with no way of making a living.

That sort of libertarian thinking puts our country back hundreds of years. Those were times when the majority of people were farmers, doctors were in short supply.

All the dreaming in the world will never sugar coat the days of starvation, lack of doctors, nurses, hospitals, and staff to run them. Add to that competent police forces, and all the rest, that most people take for granted……. the is libertarian dreamer.

Grace

@ 61

“the is libertarian dreamer.”

Should read “that is the libertarian dreamer”

Grace

@ 61

“the is libertarian dreamer.”

Should read “that is the libertarian dreamer”

Cincinnatus

Grace@61:

“Income tax is needed.”

No it’s not. Until 1913, the United States had no consistent income tax (except for intermittent, negligible income taxes levied during emergencies like the city war), and government operations were funded almost entirely from tariffs and other forms of taxation. Of course, if you want to construct all sorts of social engineering programs and regulate all sorts of individual behaviors like seat belt usage, raw milk consumption, and bubble-wrap apparel, you may find an income tax necessary to fund your government’s largesse.

“No, not all churches are in a position to care for everyones ‘health and education’ that is a fallacy.”

Based on what evidence? Upon what grounds do you claim that non-profit and other private organizations, especially localized institutions, are not competent to provide most of a community’s needs? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you can’t simply assert that a claim is fallacious without explaining why. And what’s so magical about the government (national, not state, because apparently according to you even state governments aren’t capable of doing some of this stuff) that it is competent to serve these needs?

I’m not a fan of public education, but it certainly beats children who, if there was none, would be further behind with no way of making a living.

That’s the real fallacy: that everyone, regardless of status or ambition, needs 13+ years of mandatory, state-controlled education and probably a college degree, if not a master’s degree, before one can even make a living. Tell that to my grandfather (and numerous other relatives, not to mention millions of other Americans both living and dead) who had a successful career, but wasn’t educated past the eighth grade–in a one-room schoolhouse to boot. And yes, his job involved skilled labor. He wasn’t flipping burgers.

“That sort of libertarian thinking puts our country back hundreds of years. Those were times when the majority of people were farmers, doctors were in short supply.”

Ok, first of all, hundreds of years? The United States has only existed for 245ish years. So are these dark days, these stone ages of the Republic you reference, the ones around the founding of our nation when we still enjoyed our constitutional liberties and a small government? Or the ones about ninety years ago when the nation was still full of locally viable economies, a burgeoning industrial sector, a bright future, etc.? And what’s so bad about being a farmer? Which is worse: most people being farmers, thus having the means to support and feed themselves with dignity and labor, or most people being forced to work meaningless cubicle/retail/burger-flipping jobs in the globalized service economy?

“All the dreaming in the world will never sugar coat the days of starvation, lack of doctors, nurses, hospitals, and staff to run them.”

Now you’re just being ridiculous. The United States has never suffered a famine. The only time the nation came close to a general famine was during a few short years of the “dust bowl.” Even then, you could hardly describe those years as a general period of starvation and suffering. Not to mention the fact that said near-famine was the result of government policies and poor land management, not “libertarian thinking.” And are you suggesting that we didn’t have hospitals, police, nurses, and doctors until, what, Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”? What a crock. And since when did anyone in this thread or any other thread propose to dispense with all police, doctors, hospitals, etc., anyway? And, by the way, I’ve yet to see a real libertarian in this thread–JH doesn’t appear to be one.

Grace, are you a statist, or are you a statist? If you are, stop lecturing conservatives about how to be conservative.

Cincinnatus

Grace@61:

“Income tax is needed.”

No it’s not. Until 1913, the United States had no consistent income tax (except for intermittent, negligible income taxes levied during emergencies like the city war), and government operations were funded almost entirely from tariffs and other forms of taxation. Of course, if you want to construct all sorts of social engineering programs and regulate all sorts of individual behaviors like seat belt usage, raw milk consumption, and bubble-wrap apparel, you may find an income tax necessary to fund your government’s largesse.

“No, not all churches are in a position to care for everyones ‘health and education’ that is a fallacy.”

Based on what evidence? Upon what grounds do you claim that non-profit and other private organizations, especially localized institutions, are not competent to provide most of a community’s needs? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you can’t simply assert that a claim is fallacious without explaining why. And what’s so magical about the government (national, not state, because apparently according to you even state governments aren’t capable of doing some of this stuff) that it is competent to serve these needs?

I’m not a fan of public education, but it certainly beats children who, if there was none, would be further behind with no way of making a living.

That’s the real fallacy: that everyone, regardless of status or ambition, needs 13+ years of mandatory, state-controlled education and probably a college degree, if not a master’s degree, before one can even make a living. Tell that to my grandfather (and numerous other relatives, not to mention millions of other Americans both living and dead) who had a successful career, but wasn’t educated past the eighth grade–in a one-room schoolhouse to boot. And yes, his job involved skilled labor. He wasn’t flipping burgers.

“That sort of libertarian thinking puts our country back hundreds of years. Those were times when the majority of people were farmers, doctors were in short supply.”

Ok, first of all, hundreds of years? The United States has only existed for 245ish years. So are these dark days, these stone ages of the Republic you reference, the ones around the founding of our nation when we still enjoyed our constitutional liberties and a small government? Or the ones about ninety years ago when the nation was still full of locally viable economies, a burgeoning industrial sector, a bright future, etc.? And what’s so bad about being a farmer? Which is worse: most people being farmers, thus having the means to support and feed themselves with dignity and labor, or most people being forced to work meaningless cubicle/retail/burger-flipping jobs in the globalized service economy?

“All the dreaming in the world will never sugar coat the days of starvation, lack of doctors, nurses, hospitals, and staff to run them.”

Now you’re just being ridiculous. The United States has never suffered a famine. The only time the nation came close to a general famine was during a few short years of the “dust bowl.” Even then, you could hardly describe those years as a general period of starvation and suffering. Not to mention the fact that said near-famine was the result of government policies and poor land management, not “libertarian thinking.” And are you suggesting that we didn’t have hospitals, police, nurses, and doctors until, what, Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”? What a crock. And since when did anyone in this thread or any other thread propose to dispense with all police, doctors, hospitals, etc., anyway? And, by the way, I’ve yet to see a real libertarian in this thread–JH doesn’t appear to be one.

Grace, are you a statist, or are you a statist? If you are, stop lecturing conservatives about how to be conservative.

Grace

Cincinnatus @63

You are an ISOLATIONIST, you want to keep every buck you make, or give as little as possible. Don’t “lecture” me about conservaative, I put my money where my pen can write the checks.

As a pastors daughter I’ve seen just about every kind of needy person, I have witnessed those who give, who don’t grumble about every dollar for taxes. True enough, taxes are too high, but to take away income tax is ludicrous, it’s just that kind of thinking and legislation that would set this country back about one hundred years.

Grace

Cincinnatus @63

You are an ISOLATIONIST, you want to keep every buck you make, or give as little as possible. Don’t “lecture” me about conservaative, I put my money where my pen can write the checks.

As a pastors daughter I’ve seen just about every kind of needy person, I have witnessed those who give, who don’t grumble about every dollar for taxes. True enough, taxes are too high, but to take away income tax is ludicrous, it’s just that kind of thinking and legislation that would set this country back about one hundred years.

SKPeterson

Grace,

All of the things you list as benefits of the government existed in our nation prior to the institution of the welfare state without recourse to government provision. You seem to take for granted that the governmental structures in place for the last 50 years or so are normative and that advancement in these areas occurred only during this time period. That is missing the lessons of history by a wide mark.

Most of the hospitals that exist today are the hollowed-out remnants of systems put in place by our churches (and where substantial Jewish populations existed, synagogues) either as local endeavors or across states or the nation. These hospitals and clinics did not lack for doctors, nurses or other support staff. In fact the proportion of doctors and nurses to the total population was quite similar to what exists today. Now, I would argue against your sanguine view of government involvement in health care that the government’s intrusion into health care has actually lessened access and increased costs. The AMA essentially operates as a cartel with the collusion of the state to restrict the number of practicing medical professionals, thereby artificially restricting supply. This restriction of supply means one of two things, if not both: rationing, i.e. not just waiting lists for medical services, but also medicines, treatments, etc., or higher prices. The economic truism of the price impacts of supply restrictions is not invalidated because of the good or service in question. If you restrict supply, all things equal, the price of the good or service will rise. Our governments actively seek to restrict the supply of health care to people. As a result, we see higher prices. When the government then attempts to control prices along with supply of services, we get rationing. QED.

I cannot any credence whatsoever in your contention that starvation has been reduced to close to nonexistence in our modern society because of the government. Such a position cannot be taken seriously. It is tantamount to arguing that the great investments in capital, technology, logistics and transportation systems that grow, process and distribute our food come about as the result of government.

As to education. That is a topic that would need to be addressed at length. Suffice it to say that arguing that children who only would have an education if it was publicly provided are somehow better off is a powerful assumption that I’m not sure is actually borne out by statistical evidence of educational outcomes. I know you want it to be true. That does not make it so.

You are also guilty of making an argumentative fallacy when you argue that “not all churches are in a position to care for everyone’s ‘health and education'” and use this as a reason to argue against the provision of health and education by the private sector. It may well be true that “not all” churches are capable, but the private provision of health care and educational services may not require “all”. What you have done is make a supposition about one part of the group and applied it to the whole. This is called the ecological fallacy and invalidates your point, not JH’s. You contend he has made a fallacious statement; he has not. It may be incorrect, but you have falsely declared his argument fallacious, based upon fallacious reasoning on your part. JH’s point stands. You must now argue it to be in error based upon evidence, not upon a casual dismissal based upon your own feelings about the matter.

Your point about salaries for educational workers is well taken. It still does not invalidate JH’s argument. You appear to be arguing that only in the public sector can wages be high enough to support educational workers, or attract them to the field. Two things: 1) why not apply this reasoning to everything? The government could take over and run everything and everybody would be paid high wages. That is the reductio ad absurdum of your argument. If you don’t like the reductio, don’t make the argument. 2) not all private sector employees go into education for high wages, especially those in church-related schools. They go into those fields because it is a calling; it is their vocation. Thousands of men and women go to work in Lutheran or Episcopal or Catholic schools each day because it is part of the service they render to God and their neighbor, not for material gain. I agree they need more support from the rest of us; I do not agree that the public sector provides a necessary or better alternative, though it may provide a convenient one.

Finally, you seem to think that federal, state and local tax expenditures are fixed and not fluid. That once a tax is instituted or law enacted, it must always be. Now, a large portion of state and local taxes go to the provision of education. If education was privatized, most of those taxes would go away and return to private hands to flow into the churches, big and small, so that education and other services could be funded adequately.

SKPeterson

Grace,

All of the things you list as benefits of the government existed in our nation prior to the institution of the welfare state without recourse to government provision. You seem to take for granted that the governmental structures in place for the last 50 years or so are normative and that advancement in these areas occurred only during this time period. That is missing the lessons of history by a wide mark.

Most of the hospitals that exist today are the hollowed-out remnants of systems put in place by our churches (and where substantial Jewish populations existed, synagogues) either as local endeavors or across states or the nation. These hospitals and clinics did not lack for doctors, nurses or other support staff. In fact the proportion of doctors and nurses to the total population was quite similar to what exists today. Now, I would argue against your sanguine view of government involvement in health care that the government’s intrusion into health care has actually lessened access and increased costs. The AMA essentially operates as a cartel with the collusion of the state to restrict the number of practicing medical professionals, thereby artificially restricting supply. This restriction of supply means one of two things, if not both: rationing, i.e. not just waiting lists for medical services, but also medicines, treatments, etc., or higher prices. The economic truism of the price impacts of supply restrictions is not invalidated because of the good or service in question. If you restrict supply, all things equal, the price of the good or service will rise. Our governments actively seek to restrict the supply of health care to people. As a result, we see higher prices. When the government then attempts to control prices along with supply of services, we get rationing. QED.

I cannot any credence whatsoever in your contention that starvation has been reduced to close to nonexistence in our modern society because of the government. Such a position cannot be taken seriously. It is tantamount to arguing that the great investments in capital, technology, logistics and transportation systems that grow, process and distribute our food come about as the result of government.

As to education. That is a topic that would need to be addressed at length. Suffice it to say that arguing that children who only would have an education if it was publicly provided are somehow better off is a powerful assumption that I’m not sure is actually borne out by statistical evidence of educational outcomes. I know you want it to be true. That does not make it so.

You are also guilty of making an argumentative fallacy when you argue that “not all churches are in a position to care for everyone’s ‘health and education'” and use this as a reason to argue against the provision of health and education by the private sector. It may well be true that “not all” churches are capable, but the private provision of health care and educational services may not require “all”. What you have done is make a supposition about one part of the group and applied it to the whole. This is called the ecological fallacy and invalidates your point, not JH’s. You contend he has made a fallacious statement; he has not. It may be incorrect, but you have falsely declared his argument fallacious, based upon fallacious reasoning on your part. JH’s point stands. You must now argue it to be in error based upon evidence, not upon a casual dismissal based upon your own feelings about the matter.

Your point about salaries for educational workers is well taken. It still does not invalidate JH’s argument. You appear to be arguing that only in the public sector can wages be high enough to support educational workers, or attract them to the field. Two things: 1) why not apply this reasoning to everything? The government could take over and run everything and everybody would be paid high wages. That is the reductio ad absurdum of your argument. If you don’t like the reductio, don’t make the argument. 2) not all private sector employees go into education for high wages, especially those in church-related schools. They go into those fields because it is a calling; it is their vocation. Thousands of men and women go to work in Lutheran or Episcopal or Catholic schools each day because it is part of the service they render to God and their neighbor, not for material gain. I agree they need more support from the rest of us; I do not agree that the public sector provides a necessary or better alternative, though it may provide a convenient one.

Finally, you seem to think that federal, state and local tax expenditures are fixed and not fluid. That once a tax is instituted or law enacted, it must always be. Now, a large portion of state and local taxes go to the provision of education. If education was privatized, most of those taxes would go away and return to private hands to flow into the churches, big and small, so that education and other services could be funded adequately.

SKPeterson

Grace,

Eureka! I get it! You are not a political or economic Conservative, but only, at best, a big-government loving social conservative. You are really a W.J. Bryan/T.R. Roosevelt Progressive! Your closest ally on these threads is actually Tom Hering! There’s probably not a dime’s worth of difference between you two on most economic or political issues, except he thinks Obama is the better option to impose your viewpoints and you think it’s Santorum.

So, yes, the rest of us can school you on what it means to be a conservative in the political and economic sense, since you are not such a conservative.

SKPeterson

Grace,

Eureka! I get it! You are not a political or economic Conservative, but only, at best, a big-government loving social conservative. You are really a W.J. Bryan/T.R. Roosevelt Progressive! Your closest ally on these threads is actually Tom Hering! There’s probably not a dime’s worth of difference between you two on most economic or political issues, except he thinks Obama is the better option to impose your viewpoints and you think it’s Santorum.

So, yes, the rest of us can school you on what it means to be a conservative in the political and economic sense, since you are not such a conservative.

Cincinnatus

Grace@64: As usual, what SKPeterson said.

In the meantime, what is this?

You are an ISOLATIONIST, you want to keep every buck you make, or give as little as possible.

What motivated you to say that? Where have I indicated that I am an “isolationist”? When did I say anything about my money and what I want to do with it? And what does my money have to do with whether the government should be enforcing seat belt laws and providing medical care?

Grace, here’s the thing: I’ve never seen you address the substance of arguments or claims that other people make. Instead, if someone says something with which you disagree, you immediately “go personal,” making uncharitable and offensive statements about his/her motives, character, and faith. Allow me to indulge some evangelical lingo: you’re positively un-Christ-like in these conversations, Grace. Whether your interlocutor is Martin Luther or JH, the reason he disagrees with you must be because he is sinning or inferior to you. If I disagree with you about Tim Tebow, I must be a jealous brat. If I disagree with you about the role of government, I must be a greedy “isolationist” who “wants to keep every buck [I] make.” If I disagree with you about seatbelts, it must be because I am an insensitive jerk who doesn’t care about people who have “lost someone” (to a flying corpse?). If I disagree with you about healthcare, it’s because I’m a heartless bastard who wants people to be starving and dying in the streets. If Martin Luther disagrees with you on a theological matter, it must be because he is a vicious anti-Semite. You get the idea. Stop it.

Cincinnatus

Grace@64: As usual, what SKPeterson said.

In the meantime, what is this?

You are an ISOLATIONIST, you want to keep every buck you make, or give as little as possible.

What motivated you to say that? Where have I indicated that I am an “isolationist”? When did I say anything about my money and what I want to do with it? And what does my money have to do with whether the government should be enforcing seat belt laws and providing medical care?

Grace, here’s the thing: I’ve never seen you address the substance of arguments or claims that other people make. Instead, if someone says something with which you disagree, you immediately “go personal,” making uncharitable and offensive statements about his/her motives, character, and faith. Allow me to indulge some evangelical lingo: you’re positively un-Christ-like in these conversations, Grace. Whether your interlocutor is Martin Luther or JH, the reason he disagrees with you must be because he is sinning or inferior to you. If I disagree with you about Tim Tebow, I must be a jealous brat. If I disagree with you about the role of government, I must be a greedy “isolationist” who “wants to keep every buck [I] make.” If I disagree with you about seatbelts, it must be because I am an insensitive jerk who doesn’t care about people who have “lost someone” (to a flying corpse?). If I disagree with you about healthcare, it’s because I’m a heartless bastard who wants people to be starving and dying in the streets. If Martin Luther disagrees with you on a theological matter, it must be because he is a vicious anti-Semite. You get the idea. Stop it.

SKPeterson

I do think “Unbelted Flying Corpses” would be a great name for a band.

SKPeterson

I do think “Unbelted Flying Corpses” would be a great name for a band.

Grace

Cincinnatus and SKPeterson

You two missed the debate – you’re so busy writing long posts, which I have no time to read, 😆 what a hoot.

Grace

Cincinnatus and SKPeterson

You two missed the debate – you’re so busy writing long posts, which I have no time to read, 😆 what a hoot.

JunkerGeorg

@SKPeterson, #68

“I do think “Unbelted Flying Corpses” would be a great name for a band.” ————— lol…the Canadian band “Crash Test Dummies” comes to mind….as my stream of consciousness takes me to my favorite funny name for a band, coincidentally also from Canada, namely, the Scottish Electric Bag Pipe/Rock band called, “Enter the Haggis.” 😉

JunkerGeorg

@SKPeterson, #68

“I do think “Unbelted Flying Corpses” would be a great name for a band.” ————— lol…the Canadian band “Crash Test Dummies” comes to mind….as my stream of consciousness takes me to my favorite funny name for a band, coincidentally also from Canada, namely, the Scottish Electric Bag Pipe/Rock band called, “Enter the Haggis.” 😉

JunkerGeorg

YOU CAN GO WITH THIS…..

“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, …just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals . . . The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” –RONALD REAGAN

OR YOU CAN GO WITH THAT…

“I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I don’t think the libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution’s all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is.” –RICK SANTORUM

DO…DAH…DIPPITY

JunkerGeorg

YOU CAN GO WITH THIS…..

“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, …just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals . . . The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” –RONALD REAGAN

OR YOU CAN GO WITH THAT…

“I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I don’t think the libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution’s all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is.” –RICK SANTORUM

DO…DAH…DIPPITY

http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

Grace said (@69):

You two missed the debate – you’re so busy writing long posts, which I have no time to read, what a hoot.

Oh, well, then, allow me to summarize their points for you: you’re a big-government statist with the debating skills of a fourth-grader.

http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

Grace said (@69):

You two missed the debate – you’re so busy writing long posts, which I have no time to read, what a hoot.

Oh, well, then, allow me to summarize their points for you: you’re a big-government statist with the debating skills of a fourth-grader.

Grace

Oh tODD,

One never “debates” with those who behave like silly school boys, you know, the ones you agree with, who are older, but still in the fourth grade. 😆

Don’t forget to brush your teeth!!

Grace

Oh tODD,

One never “debates” with those who behave like silly school boys, you know, the ones you agree with, who are older, but still in the fourth grade. 😆

Don’t forget to brush your teeth!!

JunkerGeorg

Gene Veith writes,

“I wouldn’t characterize the Paul supporters who participate in this blog–Cincinnatus, tODD, SKPeterson, Father Hogg [an orthodox priest]–as libertarians. (I’m sure they will correct me if I’m wrong.) So it must be possible to support Paul even if you aren’t, as he is, a card carrying libertarian. I haven’t got my mind around that, though.” ——- Dr. Veith, I wouldn’t normally do this, but the following article by Jack Hunter, (one of Ron Paul’s apologists), might help out on understanding how “conservative” and “libertarian” share more of a kinship than is often understood. This might shed some light on why some of us who claim to be conservatives and not libertarians, can support someone like Ron Paul:

When Rick Santorum’s nephew endorsed Ron Paul in an op-ed in The Daily Caller this week, he wrote: “If you want another big government politician who supports the status quo to run our country, you should vote for my uncle Rick Santorum.” Santorum respectfully and lovingly dismissed his young nephew’s endorsement. The senator said his nephew was just “going through a phase,” and later added: “I am a Reagan conservative. I am not a libertarian. And the people who are calling me a big government guy are libertarians.”

In an interview with Reason magazine in 1975, Ronald Reagan said: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism … The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Says Santorum: “I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.” Santorum is not a Reagan conservative. Not even close. It surprises people when they learn I’m not a libertarian. As Ron Paul’s official campaign blogger, I’m often perceived as being a libertarian and I am no doubt sympathetic to many libertarian views. But ultimately I’m a traditional conservative — a limited-government constitutionalist of the Barry Goldwater variety. That said, I’m no more offended at being called a libertarian than a heavy metal fan is when called a rock and roller — both terms represent far more synthesis than antithesis.

Santorum has no comprehension of this basic philosophical and historical truism. Being against big government does not represent the totality of American conservatism, but it does represent what Reagan called the “heart and soul” of conservatism. Reagan recognized that the “desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom” was indeed libertarianism but that it was also conservatism. This observation was fairly commonplace on the right during Reagan’s time, when “conservatism” was still more of a substantive philosophy than a Republican marketing tool. For example, in his book “Flying High,” a memoir about the 1964 presidential campaign, William F. Buckley repeatedly refers to Goldwater’s philosophy as “libertarian” and his famous book “The Conscience of a Conservative” as a “libertarian tome.”

So, were Reagan and Buckley wrong about libertarianism’s kinship to conservatism — or is Santorum correct to treat libertarianism as something alien to conservatism? This depends on your definition of that term.

Let’s begin with Reagan’s definition. In addition to calling libertarianism the heart of conservatism, Reagan believed that the American right was a three-legged stool consisting of social conservatives, national security conservatives and economic/libertarian conservatives. Lose a leg and conservatism loses a lot, or so Reagan believed.

During the George W. Bush era, social and national security conservatives were represented well, while the economic/libertarian leg of the American right was virtually non-existent. Conservatives now look back and wonder how a Republican president could have spent so much money. They needn’t wonder long. The notion — which has been advanced by Santorum, Mike Huckabee and others — that libertarian influence in the Republican Party poses a problem is absurd. It was the lack of libertarian principles that defined Bush’s “deficits don’t matter” GOP. “Libertarian influence” in the Republican Party is a problem only if one thinks the national debt is not a problem. Before the tea party and Obama, few Republicans seemed to think it was.

And Santorum was their leader. Writes The Washington Examiner’s Timothy P. Carney:

As a member of Senate leadership, Santorum literally was an agent of the GOP establishment during passage of No Child Left Behind, the expansion of Medicare, and the overspending of the Bush era.

Red State’s Erick Erickson is even more explicit: Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. He is. You will have to deal with it. He is a big government conservative. Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state. In fact, he has been complicit in the expansion of the welfare state.

Santorum not only rejects Reagan’s concept of conservatism as a three-legged stool, he admits he is eager to kick out the libertarian leg. When Santorum says, “I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement,” he is essentially saying that he fights strongly against what Reagan considered the integral core of American conservatism. This is not to say that Reagan or even Goldwater were libertarianism personified — only that any person who calls themselves a “Goldwater” or “Reagan” conservative also must be a libertarian to some degree in their philosophy. Goldwater would have likely agreed with this sentiment. Reagan certainly did. In a 2005 piece entitled “Goodbye to Goldwater,” Reason’s Jonathan Rauch explained how Santorum’s big government Republicanism is a rejection of traditional Goldwater/Reagan conservatism: “As Goldwater repudiated Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, so Santorum repudiates Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.”

Rauch continues:

Santorum shows no interest in defining principled limits on political power. His first priority is to make government pro-family, not to make it small. … The bold new challenge to the Goldwater-Reagan tradition in American politics comes not from the left but from the right.

When Reagan said “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem,” those 12 words defined traditional American conservatism as it has existed for most of its history. Santorum does not think government is a problem — he thinks people in the Republican Party who think government is the problem are a problem. The George W. Bush years represented a hard break from the Goldwater-Reagan tradition and Santorum arguably represented this rejection of Reagan conservatism better than any other Republican. He still does.

Santorum now says his nephew’s admiration for Ron Paul is a phase. Perhaps this is true. But rejecting Reagan conservatism was also a phase. The GOP of the last decade was emblematic of this disaster and Santorum was the constant pitchman for it. I’m not a libertarian, but like Reagan I understand well that we cannot have limited government without possessing the libertarian’s concern for individual liberty and fear of centralized power. Rick Santorum is adamantly not a libertarian — and in rejecting that philosophy wholesale, he continues to fight against what Ronald Reagan considered the heart and soul of the conservative movement.

JunkerGeorg

Gene Veith writes,

“I wouldn’t characterize the Paul supporters who participate in this blog–Cincinnatus, tODD, SKPeterson, Father Hogg [an orthodox priest]–as libertarians. (I’m sure they will correct me if I’m wrong.) So it must be possible to support Paul even if you aren’t, as he is, a card carrying libertarian. I haven’t got my mind around that, though.” ——- Dr. Veith, I wouldn’t normally do this, but the following article by Jack Hunter, (one of Ron Paul’s apologists), might help out on understanding how “conservative” and “libertarian” share more of a kinship than is often understood. This might shed some light on why some of us who claim to be conservatives and not libertarians, can support someone like Ron Paul:

When Rick Santorum’s nephew endorsed Ron Paul in an op-ed in The Daily Caller this week, he wrote: “If you want another big government politician who supports the status quo to run our country, you should vote for my uncle Rick Santorum.” Santorum respectfully and lovingly dismissed his young nephew’s endorsement. The senator said his nephew was just “going through a phase,” and later added: “I am a Reagan conservative. I am not a libertarian. And the people who are calling me a big government guy are libertarians.”

In an interview with Reason magazine in 1975, Ronald Reagan said: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism … The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Says Santorum: “I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.” Santorum is not a Reagan conservative. Not even close. It surprises people when they learn I’m not a libertarian. As Ron Paul’s official campaign blogger, I’m often perceived as being a libertarian and I am no doubt sympathetic to many libertarian views. But ultimately I’m a traditional conservative — a limited-government constitutionalist of the Barry Goldwater variety. That said, I’m no more offended at being called a libertarian than a heavy metal fan is when called a rock and roller — both terms represent far more synthesis than antithesis.

Santorum has no comprehension of this basic philosophical and historical truism. Being against big government does not represent the totality of American conservatism, but it does represent what Reagan called the “heart and soul” of conservatism. Reagan recognized that the “desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom” was indeed libertarianism but that it was also conservatism. This observation was fairly commonplace on the right during Reagan’s time, when “conservatism” was still more of a substantive philosophy than a Republican marketing tool. For example, in his book “Flying High,” a memoir about the 1964 presidential campaign, William F. Buckley repeatedly refers to Goldwater’s philosophy as “libertarian” and his famous book “The Conscience of a Conservative” as a “libertarian tome.”

So, were Reagan and Buckley wrong about libertarianism’s kinship to conservatism — or is Santorum correct to treat libertarianism as something alien to conservatism? This depends on your definition of that term.

Let’s begin with Reagan’s definition. In addition to calling libertarianism the heart of conservatism, Reagan believed that the American right was a three-legged stool consisting of social conservatives, national security conservatives and economic/libertarian conservatives. Lose a leg and conservatism loses a lot, or so Reagan believed.

During the George W. Bush era, social and national security conservatives were represented well, while the economic/libertarian leg of the American right was virtually non-existent. Conservatives now look back and wonder how a Republican president could have spent so much money. They needn’t wonder long. The notion — which has been advanced by Santorum, Mike Huckabee and others — that libertarian influence in the Republican Party poses a problem is absurd. It was the lack of libertarian principles that defined Bush’s “deficits don’t matter” GOP. “Libertarian influence” in the Republican Party is a problem only if one thinks the national debt is not a problem. Before the tea party and Obama, few Republicans seemed to think it was.

And Santorum was their leader. Writes The Washington Examiner’s Timothy P. Carney:

As a member of Senate leadership, Santorum literally was an agent of the GOP establishment during passage of No Child Left Behind, the expansion of Medicare, and the overspending of the Bush era.

Red State’s Erick Erickson is even more explicit: Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. He is. You will have to deal with it. He is a big government conservative. Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state. In fact, he has been complicit in the expansion of the welfare state.

Santorum not only rejects Reagan’s concept of conservatism as a three-legged stool, he admits he is eager to kick out the libertarian leg. When Santorum says, “I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement,” he is essentially saying that he fights strongly against what Reagan considered the integral core of American conservatism. This is not to say that Reagan or even Goldwater were libertarianism personified — only that any person who calls themselves a “Goldwater” or “Reagan” conservative also must be a libertarian to some degree in their philosophy. Goldwater would have likely agreed with this sentiment. Reagan certainly did. In a 2005 piece entitled “Goodbye to Goldwater,” Reason’s Jonathan Rauch explained how Santorum’s big government Republicanism is a rejection of traditional Goldwater/Reagan conservatism: “As Goldwater repudiated Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, so Santorum repudiates Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.”

Rauch continues:

Santorum shows no interest in defining principled limits on political power. His first priority is to make government pro-family, not to make it small. … The bold new challenge to the Goldwater-Reagan tradition in American politics comes not from the left but from the right.

When Reagan said “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem,” those 12 words defined traditional American conservatism as it has existed for most of its history. Santorum does not think government is a problem — he thinks people in the Republican Party who think government is the problem are a problem. The George W. Bush years represented a hard break from the Goldwater-Reagan tradition and Santorum arguably represented this rejection of Reagan conservatism better than any other Republican. He still does.

Santorum now says his nephew’s admiration for Ron Paul is a phase. Perhaps this is true. But rejecting Reagan conservatism was also a phase. The GOP of the last decade was emblematic of this disaster and Santorum was the constant pitchman for it. I’m not a libertarian, but like Reagan I understand well that we cannot have limited government without possessing the libertarian’s concern for individual liberty and fear of centralized power. Rick Santorum is adamantly not a libertarian — and in rejecting that philosophy wholesale, he continues to fight against what Ronald Reagan considered the heart and soul of the conservative movement.

Tom Hering

Todd @ 72, you have no right to take my standing as this blog’s big government (welfare) statist and reassign it to Grace. It’s a reputation (thanks SK Peterson @ 66!) I’m proud of and quite jealous to protect. So I’ll thank you to remember who’s who around here in future.

Tom Hering

Todd @ 72, you have no right to take my standing as this blog’s big government (welfare) statist and reassign it to Grace. It’s a reputation (thanks SK Peterson @ 66!) I’m proud of and quite jealous to protect. So I’ll thank you to remember who’s who around here in future.

Cincinnatus

Grace, you didn’t have to tell us that you’re not much of a reader.

Cincinnatus

Grace, you didn’t have to tell us that you’re not much of a reader.

SKPeterson

Tom! Glad you could chime in. Grace seems like she’s fully on board with you in almost every respect. ;D

SKPeterson

Tom! Glad you could chime in. Grace seems like she’s fully on board with you in almost every respect. ;D

Grace

Cincinnatus @ 76

“Grace, you didn’t have to tell us that you’re not much of a reader.”

Your ramblings in post 67 should suffice, as to why I have no interest in reading YOUR posts, that goes for SKPeterson @ 65, 66 and 68, as well.

Grace

Cincinnatus @ 76

“Grace, you didn’t have to tell us that you’re not much of a reader.”

Your ramblings in post 67 should suffice, as to why I have no interest in reading YOUR posts, that goes for SKPeterson @ 65, 66 and 68, as well.

Grace

Cincinnatus and SKPeterson

Both of you have the same problem George Stephanopoulos had last night when questioning the candidates. Stumbling over assertions, mixing and matching prior discussions and individuals. A complete faux pas of sorts, or more precisely a group of BLUNDERS. 😆

Grace

Cincinnatus and SKPeterson

Both of you have the same problem George Stephanopoulos had last night when questioning the candidates. Stumbling over assertions, mixing and matching prior discussions and individuals. A complete faux pas of sorts, or more precisely a group of BLUNDERS. 😆

Cincinnatus

You know, Grace, your doctor could readily prescribe some medications that would help you focus on our discussion.

Cincinnatus

You know, Grace, your doctor could readily prescribe some medications that would help you focus on our discussion.

JunkerGeorg

Romney is slick. I’ll give him that. I thought it was funny in last night’s debate when Romney wimped out on a Constitutional question he really didn’t have the knowledge to answer, quickly deferring the question to Ron Paul next to him by stating, “Ask the Constitutionalist.” Had Ron Paul thought of it, he should have replied, “Well Mitt, are you implying I’m the only Constitutionalist up here? Aren’t you a constitutionalist too?”

JunkerGeorg

Romney is slick. I’ll give him that. I thought it was funny in last night’s debate when Romney wimped out on a Constitutional question he really didn’t have the knowledge to answer, quickly deferring the question to Ron Paul next to him by stating, “Ask the Constitutionalist.” Had Ron Paul thought of it, he should have replied, “Well Mitt, are you implying I’m the only Constitutionalist up here? Aren’t you a constitutionalist too?”

Cincinnatus

JunkerGeorg@81:

It’s also amusing that Republicans are painting Romney’s response as heroically intelligent in the face of biased persecution by the moderators. Yes, the question was pretty stupid–a retrograde hypothetical with no bearing on anything contemporary state governments wish to do and a “gotcha” attempting to paint all conservatives either as hypocritical in their federalism or oppressive in their approach to morality.

But the answer to the question is found unambiguously in a Supreme Court case that every political science undergraduate lhas drilled into his head in his first law course (not even to mention a Harvard Law student): Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Court invented a right to privacy and overturned a Connecticut law that prohibited the sale of contraceptives.

Cincinnatus

JunkerGeorg@81:

It’s also amusing that Republicans are painting Romney’s response as heroically intelligent in the face of biased persecution by the moderators. Yes, the question was pretty stupid–a retrograde hypothetical with no bearing on anything contemporary state governments wish to do and a “gotcha” attempting to paint all conservatives either as hypocritical in their federalism or oppressive in their approach to morality.

But the answer to the question is found unambiguously in a Supreme Court case that every political science undergraduate lhas drilled into his head in his first law course (not even to mention a Harvard Law student): Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Court invented a right to privacy and overturned a Connecticut law that prohibited the sale of contraceptives.

SKPeterson

Grace,

Your comment @ 79 is laughable (truly, I had to laugh). I mean you’re seriously equating your casual insouciance and flippant dismissal of arguments contrary to yours as being in line with reasoned and rational debate. That is rich. Hilariously rich. I take this comment of yours as confirmatory evidence that you don’t have an actual point to make that is based in any way upon logic, reason or sane thought. Merely a simpleton’s overwrought emotionalism. This must just be your particular delusional means of admitting defeat.

SKPeterson

Grace,

Your comment @ 79 is laughable (truly, I had to laugh). I mean you’re seriously equating your casual insouciance and flippant dismissal of arguments contrary to yours as being in line with reasoned and rational debate. That is rich. Hilariously rich. I take this comment of yours as confirmatory evidence that you don’t have an actual point to make that is based in any way upon logic, reason or sane thought. Merely a simpleton’s overwrought emotionalism. This must just be your particular delusional means of admitting defeat.

http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

SK (@83), yeah, Grace’s 😆 is basically a less-French “Touché.”

http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

SK (@83), yeah, Grace’s 😆 is basically a less-French “Touché.”

Grace

YEAH !

YEAH !

YEAH !

YEAH !

The BRONCOS with TIM TEBOW

YEAH !

YEAH !

YEAH !

YEAH !

WHAT A GAME!

Grace

YEAH !

YEAH !

YEAH !

YEAH !

The BRONCOS with TIM TEBOW

YEAH !

YEAH !

YEAH !

YEAH !

WHAT A GAME!

Grace

What was that about Tebow @ 67? 😆

Grace

What was that about Tebow @ 67? 😆

http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

My apologies to all the fourth-graders I’ve apparently insulted (@72).

http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

My apologies to all the fourth-graders I’ve apparently insulted (@72).

SKPeterson

Todd @87 – I think Grace is calling you a jealous brat @ 86. Maybe. Or she’s insinuating that the Bronco’s won because God is on Tebow’s side. Which is wrong. God is not for the Broncos and Tebow, He is against the Steelers which everyone knows are Satan’s own.

SKPeterson

Todd @87 – I think Grace is calling you a jealous brat @ 86. Maybe. Or she’s insinuating that the Bronco’s won because God is on Tebow’s side. Which is wrong. God is not for the Broncos and Tebow, He is against the Steelers which everyone knows are Satan’s own.

JunkerGeorg

Umm, don’t forget to factor in the “G” on the Packer’s helmets when discussing which is “God’s Team”. 😉

JunkerGeorg

Umm, don’t forget to factor in the “G” on the Packer’s helmets when discussing which is “God’s Team”. 😉

Grace

JunkerGeorg @89

You blaspheme the gift that God ALMIGHTY has given Tim Tebow? The man is grateful to God and shows it, he’s not afraid to kneel before the LORD in gratitude.

blaspheme definition

To speak of (God or a sacred entity) in an irreverent, impious manner.

Grace

JunkerGeorg @89

You blaspheme the gift that God ALMIGHTY has given Tim Tebow? The man is grateful to God and shows it, he’s not afraid to kneel before the LORD in gratitude.

blaspheme definition

To speak of (God or a sacred entity) in an irreverent, impious manner.

http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

Remember, folks, if Grace isn’t non-sensically accusing you of being “jealous” of one of her heroes, she’s non-sensically accusing you of “blasphemy”.

The important thing, though, is that Grace remains immune to the point you were making, and will continue to miss that point, thank you very much. You jealous blasphemer, you.

Also, Grace routinely provides definitions of words for which she thinks you don’t know the definition. This has the unfortunate tendency of letting you know which pedestrian words she apparently considers exotic, thus having the opposite effect of what was likely intended.

Grace also semi-randomly capitalizes references to God. I’d give better-than-even odds that she can’t provide a coherent rationalization for this behavior.

http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

Remember, folks, if Grace isn’t non-sensically accusing you of being “jealous” of one of her heroes, she’s non-sensically accusing you of “blasphemy”.

The important thing, though, is that Grace remains immune to the point you were making, and will continue to miss that point, thank you very much. You jealous blasphemer, you.

Also, Grace routinely provides definitions of words for which she thinks you don’t know the definition. This has the unfortunate tendency of letting you know which pedestrian words she apparently considers exotic, thus having the opposite effect of what was likely intended.

Grace also semi-randomly capitalizes references to God. I’d give better-than-even odds that she can’t provide a coherent rationalization for this behavior.

JunkerGeorg

Grace January 9, 2012 at 7:03 pm JunkerGeorg @89

You blaspheme the gift that God ALMIGHTY has given Tim Tebow? ——–

Wow. How does a JOKE about the Green Bay Packers being God’s Team have anything to do with Tim Tebow? I was responding to SK, not you Grace!

Grace, guess what? The world does not completely revolve around you. Or rather, our world does not revolve around whatever bleeming planet you’re living on.

Seriously Grace. You need help. You need to see a psychologist. I’m not the only one saying it. In my field I’ve seen it many times. I suspect you may have a bi-polar disorder. Seriously. I’m not trying to knock you. Get some help. There are medications that can help you gain some internal balance, because right now, you are not well, and it shows.

JunkerGeorg

Grace January 9, 2012 at 7:03 pm JunkerGeorg @89

You blaspheme the gift that God ALMIGHTY has given Tim Tebow? ——–

Wow. How does a JOKE about the Green Bay Packers being God’s Team have anything to do with Tim Tebow? I was responding to SK, not you Grace!

Grace, guess what? The world does not completely revolve around you. Or rather, our world does not revolve around whatever bleeming planet you’re living on.

Seriously Grace. You need help. You need to see a psychologist. I’m not the only one saying it. In my field I’ve seen it many times. I suspect you may have a bi-polar disorder. Seriously. I’m not trying to knock you. Get some help. There are medications that can help you gain some internal balance, because right now, you are not well, and it shows.

Klasie Kraalogies

Oh – seatbelts. I could have been seriously injured, even killed, on the 31st of December, if I wasn’t wearing my seatbelt. As it was, I dusted myself off, and walked away. Car was written off though, and I sould be getting the cheque from the insurers this week.

Klasie Kraalogies

Oh – seatbelts. I could have been seriously injured, even killed, on the 31st of December, if I wasn’t wearing my seatbelt. As it was, I dusted myself off, and walked away. Car was written off though, and I sould be getting the cheque from the insurers this week.

kerner

Klasie:

I know that Canadians write and cash cheques, whereas Americans write and cash checks. But, how do they spell it in South Africa?

But the rest of you guys, until Tebow and the Broncos play the Packers, I’m for ’em. Tebow broke one of Elway’s records in that game. It was great.

kerner

Klasie:

I know that Canadians write and cash cheques, whereas Americans write and cash checks. But, how do they spell it in South Africa?

But the rest of you guys, until Tebow and the Broncos play the Packers, I’m for ’em. Tebow broke one of Elway’s records in that game. It was great.

Klasie Kraalogies

Kerner: SA – Cheques.

Klasie Kraalogies

Kerner: SA – Cheques.

kerner

Oh one more thing. When I went to school in California in 1977, I was surprised to find that there WERE prostitution venues in all the local suburban strip malls. Of course, they called them “massage parlors”, but I don’t think anyone went there for chiropractic care.

Meanwhile, as Cincinnatus points out, in Wisconsin the large cities all have ordinances probibiting or restricting strip clubs. But rural areas do not. So what we end up with is strip joints located in all these Norman Rockwell-esque little towns or country crossroads. I guess I’m just wondering how federal indifference to prostitution would make that much of a difference in California, or WIsconsin, life.

kerner

Oh one more thing. When I went to school in California in 1977, I was surprised to find that there WERE prostitution venues in all the local suburban strip malls. Of course, they called them “massage parlors”, but I don’t think anyone went there for chiropractic care.

Meanwhile, as Cincinnatus points out, in Wisconsin the large cities all have ordinances probibiting or restricting strip clubs. But rural areas do not. So what we end up with is strip joints located in all these Norman Rockwell-esque little towns or country crossroads. I guess I’m just wondering how federal indifference to prostitution would make that much of a difference in California, or WIsconsin, life.

kerner

One last thing. One legitimate reason for federal interest in what would otherwise be local concerns, is that there are “interstate” manefestations of some of these things. But the “commerse clause” of the constitution has been so abused as to be almost meaningless, so we have a legitimate legal theory that has been morphed into someting monstrous IMHO. So, for the feds to voluntarity take a step back at this point may be, on balance, a good thing.

kerner

One last thing. One legitimate reason for federal interest in what would otherwise be local concerns, is that there are “interstate” manefestations of some of these things. But the “commerse clause” of the constitution has been so abused as to be almost meaningless, so we have a legitimate legal theory that has been morphed into someting monstrous IMHO. So, for the feds to voluntarity take a step back at this point may be, on balance, a good thing.